Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Winnie/Stowell, TX. The FAA is taking this action to support new public instrument procedures.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chambers County/Winnie Stowell Airport, Winnie/Stowell, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-0615 in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022 and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Chambers County/Winnie Stowell Airport, Winnie/Stowell, TX.
This action supports new public instrument procedures.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Chambers County/Winnie Stowell Airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the Dutch Shoe Regatta special local regulation on the waters of San Diego Bay, California on July 21, 2023. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced for the Dutch Shoe Regatta regulated area listed in item 4 in Table 1 to § 100.1101 from noon to 4:30 p.m. on July 21, 2023.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Kim Shera, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the Dutch Shoe Regatta in San Diego Bay, CA for the location described in Table 1 to § 100.1101, Item No. 4 of that section Regatta from noon to 4:30 p.m. on July 21, 2023. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eleventh Coast Guard District, § 100.1101, Item No. 4 of that section, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Dutch Shoe Regatta which encompasses the waters of San Diego Bay, CA, from Shelter Island to Glorietta Bay. Under the provisions of § 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a marine information broadcast or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters surrounding Marathon, Florida, during the Marathon July 4th Fireworks event. The safety zone will encompass a 200-yard radius on Sombrero Beach. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Key West or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Hailye Wilson, Waterways Management Division, Sector Key West, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-292-8772, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Key West (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Marathon July 4th Fireworks event will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius from position 24°41.470′ N, 081°05.205′ W, on Sombrero Beach near Marathon, FL. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the event participants, the general public, vessels and the navigable waters of Marathon, Florida, during the Marathon July 4th Fireworks event.
This rule establishes a safety zone on certain navigable waters of Marathon, FL, during the Marathon July 4th Fireworks event. The safety zone will encompass a 200-yard radius from position 24°41.470′ N, 081°05.205′ W, on Sombrero Beach. The safety zone will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023. Approximately 300 spectator craft are anticipated to attend the event. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during a firework display lasting thirty minutes. Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they will be able to safely transit around the safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during a firework display lasting thirty minutes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by telephone at (305) 292-8772, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters surrounding Key West, Florida, during the Key West July 4th Fireworks event. The safety zone will include an 800-foot radius around the White Street Pier in Key West, FL. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Key West or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2023.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Hailye Wilson, Waterways Management Division, Sector Key West, FL, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-292-8823, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Key West (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Key West July 4th Fireworks event will be a safety concern for anyone within 800 feet of the White Street Pier in Key West, FL. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the event participants, the general public, vessels and the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during the Key West July 4th Fireworks event.
This rule establishes a safety zone on certain navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during the Key West July 4th Fireworks event. The safety zone will encompass an 800-foot radius around the White Street Pier in Key West, FL. The safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2023. Approximately 300 spectator craft are anticipated to attend the event. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during a firework display lasting thirty minutes. Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during a firework display lasting thirty minutes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by telephone at 305-292-8727, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce numerous safety zones within the San Francisco Captain of the Port area of responsibility during the dates and times specified below. This action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the hazards associated with the fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the regulated areas, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM) or an Official Patrol including any Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced for the locations identified in Items 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 31 of Table 1 to § 165.1191 during the dates and times identified in the
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer First Class Shannon Curtaz-Milian, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7440, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item numbers 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 31 during the dates, times, and locations indicated in the table below. The dates, times, and locations will also be published in the Local Notice to Mariners at least 10 days prior to the date of each event.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol, defined as a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the safety zone. During the enforcement periods, if you are the operator of a vessel in one of the safety zones, you must comply directions from the Patrol Commander or other Official Patrol. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish final regulations that set rates and terms for use of certain works in connection with noncommercial broadcasting for the period from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2027.
For access to the docket to read background documents or the comment received, go to eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case management system, at
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, (202) 707-7658,
Section 118 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, establishes a statutory license for the use of certain copyrighted works in connection with noncommercial television and radio broadcasting. Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act requires the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for the section 118 license. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), 804(b)(6). In accordance with section 804(b)(6), the Judges commenced the proceeding to set rates and terms for the period 2023-2027 on January 5, 2021. 86 FR 325.
In the
The Judges set the timetable for the three-month negotiation period,
There are two ways copyright owners and public broadcasting entities
Second, copyright owners and public broadcasting entities may negotiate rates and terms for categories of copyrighted works and uses that would be binding on all owners and entities using the same license and submit them to the Judges for approval. Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval. This section states that the Judges shall: (1) provide an opportunity to comment on the agreement to non-participants who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement; and (2) provide an opportunity to comment and to object to participants in the proceeding who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement.
The Judges received negotiated rates and terms from ASCAP (Jul. 2, 2021), BMI (May 17, 2021), GMR (Sept. 9, 2021), and SESAC (Sept. 3, 2021), and jointly from all four (Dec. 7, 2022) regarding rates for compositions in their repertories by certain public broadcasters;
The Judges published the aforementioned settlements in the
Pursuant to section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act, the Judges have the authority to adopt settlements between some or all of the participants to a proceeding at any time during a proceeding. This section states that the Judges shall: (1) provide an opportunity
Regardless of the comments of interested parties or participants, the Judges are not compelled to adopt a settlement to the extent it includes provisions that are inconsistent with the statutory license.
As the Register of Copyrights (Register) observed in the 2009 review of the Judges' decision, nothing in the statute precludes rejection of any portions of a settlement that would be contrary to provisions of the applicable license or otherwise contrary to the statute. 74 FR 4540. In the instance under review by the Register, the settlement agreement purported to alter the date(s) for payment of royalties granting licensees a longer period than section 115 provided.
The Judges received one comment from Jacob Eisenmann. Mr. Eisenmann questions whether the joint proposal of ASCAP, BMI, GMR, and SESAC, which proposes to modify the royalty rates set forth in § 381.5 through a term providing rate options for licensed use of compositions in the GMR repertory by certain entities broadcasting primarily in a religious format, is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Eisenmann Comment at 1-2. Mr. Eisenmann acknowledges that the history of the interpretation of the Establishment Clause is extensive, and points to
While the Judges may refuse to adopt a settlement that is inconsistent with the statutory license or otherwise contrary to law, the Judges do not find the challenged provisions regarding the GMR repertory to be contrary to law.
The Judges are directed to 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A) to consider whether a settlement agreement provides a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates, and to do so based on the record before them if one exists. The arrival upon and submission of settlements, axiomatically, may be driven in part to avoid costly and uncertain litigation, a motivation that is secular in nature, and the settlement at issue addressed a range of uses and users of GMR repertory. Furthermore, the setting of rates and terms, as well as the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act, which facilitate and
The Judges note that the challenged rates and terms, which were proposed by GMR, apply solely to the GMR repertory. Furthermore, the Judges observe that the challenged rates and terms address genres of music used under the license and the primary genre format of a licensee, without delineation of any particular religion. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Judges do not find that the challenged provisions impermissibly advance religion or create excessive entanglement between religion and government.
In addition to finding that the challenged rates are not prohibited under the Establishment Clause, the Judges disagree with Mr. Eisenmann's assertion that the challenged rates promote any specific religion either in purpose or effect. By the plain language, the provisions address “stations broadcasting primarily in a religious format” and include a parenthetical language noting that the classification is “without limitation” particularly in relation to several identified genres of music.
For the reasons set forth herein, and on the basis of the entirety of the record before them, the Judges find that adoption of the challenged rates, the product of a settlement applicable to the repertory of the proponent copyright owner, adequately serves a secular purpose and does not impermissibly advance religion or create excessive entanglement between religion and government. In addition, the Judges note the perfunctory nature of Mr. Eisenmann's comment and legal analysis, from which the Judges cannot ascertain a basis for rejecting the settlement on constitutional grounds.
The Judges adopt the rates and terms and technical revision as proposed.
Copyright, Music, Radio, Rates, Television.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 381 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 118, 801(b)(1) and 803.
(a)
(c)
(c)
(1) For all such compositions in the repertory of ASCAP, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(2) For all such compositions in the repertory of BMI, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(3) For all such compositions in the repertory of SESAC, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi) Such cost of living adjustment to be made in accordance with the greater of: (A) The change, if any, in the Consumer Price Index (all consumers, all items) published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, during the twelve (12) month period from the most recent Index, published before December 1 of the year immediately prior to the applicable year; or
(B) One and one-half percent (1.5%).
(4) For all such compositions in the repertory of GMR, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi) For stations broadcasting primarily in a religious format (including, without limitation, Contemporary Christian music, praise and worship, Gospel, Southern Gospel, Spanish religious music, inspirational, religious, etc.), at their option for 2023-2027, either the rates set forth in paragraph (c)(4) of this section or the rates set forth in § 381.6(d)(4).
(5) For the performance of all other such compositions: $1.
(d)
(e)
(d)
(1) For all such compositions in the repertory of ASCAP, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i) Music fees for stations with 20% or more programming containing Feature Music are as follows:
(ii) Talk Format Station fees for stations with <20% Feature Music programming are as follows:
(2) For all such compositions in the repertory of BMI, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i) Music fees for stations with 20% or more programming containing Feature Music are as follows:
(ii) Talk Format Station fees for stations with <20% Feature Music programming are as follows:
(3) For all such compositions in the repertory of SESAC, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i) Music fees for stations with 20% or more programming containing Feature Music are as follows:
(ii) Talk Format Station fees for stations with <20% Feature Music programming are as follows:
(4) For all such compositions in the repertory of GMR, the royalty rates shall be as follows:
(i) For a public broadcasting entity within the scope of this section that is broadcasting one or more radio stations as of January 1, 2023, a single $50 fee for each such station for the entire five-year license term from 2023 through 2027; and
(ii) For a public broadcasting entity within the scope of this section that begins broadcasting a radio station after January 1, 2023, but before December 31, 2027, a pro-rated amount equal to $10 multiplied by the number of full or partial years remaining in the 2023-2027 license term as of the date on which the radio station begins broadcasting (
(5) For the performance of all other such compositions, from 2023 through 2027: $1.
(e)
(2)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(ii) For such uses other than in a PBS-distributed television program, the royalty fee shall be calculated by multiplying the following per-composition rates by the number of different compositions in that program:
(iii) In the event the work is first recorded other than in a PBS-distributed program, and such program is subsequently distributed by PBS, an additional royalty payment shall be made equal to the difference between the rate specified in this section for other than a PBS-distributed program and the rate specified in this section for a PBS-distributed program.
(2) For uses licensed under this section of a musical work in an NPR program, the royalty fees shall be calculated by multiplying the following per-composition rates by the number of different compositions in any NPR program distributed by NPR. For purposes of the schedule established in this section, “National Public Radio” programs include all programs produced in whole or in part by NPR, or by any NPR station or organization under contract with NPR.
(3) For purposes of the schedule established in this section, a “concert feature” shall be deemed to be the nondramatic presentation in a program of all or part of a symphony, concerto, or other serious work originally written for concert performance, or the nondramatic presentation in a program of portions of a serious work originally written for opera performance.
(4) For such uses other than in an NPR-produced radio program:
(5) The schedule of fees covers use for a period of three years following the first use. Succeeding use periods will require the following additional payment: Additional one-year period—25 percent of the initial three-year fee; second three-year period—50 percent of the initial three-year fee; each three-year fee thereafter—25 percent of the initial three-year fee; provided that a 100 percent additional payment prior to the expiration of the first three-year period will cover use during all subsequent use periods without limitation. Such succeeding uses which are subsequent to December 31, 2022, shall be subject to the schedule of royalty rates established in this section.
(6) For each use licensed under this section pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2) of this section for transmission via the internet, the royalty fees shall include a pro-rata share of $2,000 per calendar year, which share shall be determined by calculating the aggregate amount of royalty fees earned during that calendar year and dividing the sum by the amount of royalty fees earned for each use.
(c)
(e)
(a) On or before December 1, 2023, the Copyright Royalty Judges shall publish in the
(b) On the same date of the notices published pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the Copyright Royalty Judges shall publish in the
(1) The change in the cost of living determined as provided in paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) One-and-a-half percent (1.5%).
(3) Such royalty rates shall be fixed at the nearest dollar.
(c) The adjusted schedule for the rates for § 381.5(c)(3) and (4) shall become effective thirty (30) days after publication in the
Approved by:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correcting amendment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a correcting amendment due to an error in a final rule that was published in the
Effective June 28, 2023.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0556. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mrs. Lula H. Melton, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division (E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
This correction does not change any final action taken by the EPA on March 29, 2023 (88 FR 18396); this action merely corrects language in section 1.1 of Performance Specification 16 of appendix B to part 60, which was inadvertently changed at 88 FR 18411 (March 29, 2023).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 60 by making the following correcting amendment:
42 U.S.C. 7401
1.1 * * * These specifications apply to PEMS that are installed under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 after April 24, 2009.
In rule document 2023-11904 beginning on page 38280 in the issue of Monday, June 12, 2023 make the following corrections:
1. On page 38339, Equation 1 should read as follows:
2. On page 38340, Equation 2 should read as follows:
3. On the same page, Equation 3 should read as follows:
4. On page 38341, Equation 4 should read as follows:
5. On the same page, Equation 5 should read as follows:
6. On the same page, Equation 6 should read as follows:
7. On the same page, Equation 7 should read as follows:
8, On the same page, Equation 8 should read as follows:
9. On page 38342, Equation 9 and the first two words following it should read as follows:
10. On the same page, Equation 10 should read as follows:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the Okaloosa darter (
This rule is effective July 28, 2023.
This final rule, supporting documents in preparing this rule, the post-delisting monitoring plan, and the comments received on the proposed rule are available for public inspection at
Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, Florida Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; telephone 904-731-3134. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The determination to delist a species must be based on an analysis of the same factors. Under the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11, we may delist a species if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species when considering the five factors listed above; or (3) the listed entity does not meet the statutory definition of a species. We have determined that the Okaloosa darter should be delisted because, based on an analysis of the five listing factors, it has recovered and no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.
Specifically, our recent review indicated that actions by the U.S. Air Force and implementation of multiple conservation agreements with local landowners have reduced erosion into streams to background levels, restored and reconnected stream habitat, restored and improved management of longleaf and watersheds, maintained historical water flows, and improved and maintained water quality and riparian habitat to the point that the Okaloosa darter no longer requires protections under the Act. Accordingly, the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act.
A species status assessment (SSA) report for the Okaloosa darter was prepared by an SSA team (USFWS 2019, entire). The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
On November 17, 2021, we published in the
In the proposed rule published on November 17, 2021 (86 FR 64158), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by January 18, 2022. We also contacted the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC), scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A newspaper notice inviting the public to provide comments on the proposed rule was published in the Northwest Florida Daily News and the Tallahassee Democrat on November 19, 2021.
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered the two comments we received during the public period on the proposed rule to delist the Okaloosa darter. We received one substantive comment from the FWC that suggested increasing the frequency of surveys in the post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan from biannually to annually in years 1 through 4. After further discussion between the Service and FWC staff, we collectively determined that biannual surveys would be adequate to capture any future changes in Okaloosa darter population size, and thus we made no changes to this final rule or the PDM plan based on this comment. The other comment we received was not substantive. In summary, we made no substantive changes to this final rule based on public comments received. Minor, nonsubstantive changes and corrections have been made throughout this final rule. In preparing this final rule, we also refined the
Below, we present a review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall status of the Okaloosa darter, referencing data where appropriate from the SSA report that was finalized for the species in April 2019 (USFWS 2019, entire).
The Okaloosa darter is a small (maximum size 49 millimeters (mm), 1.93 inches (in)) percid fish (perch family). General body coloration varies from red-brown to green-yellow dorsally, and lighter ventrally, although breeding males have a bright orange submarginal stripe on the first dorsal fin (Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 23). The Okaloosa darter is a member of Order Perciformes, Family Percidae and is a distinct species within the genus
The Okaloosa darter is a narrow endemic, known to occur in only the tributaries and main channels of six clear stream systems that drain into three Choctawhatchee Bay bayous (Toms, Boggy, and Rocky) in Walton and Okaloosa Counties in northwest Florida: Toms, Turkey, Mill, Swift, Deer Moss (formerly known as East Turkey or Turkey Bolton), and Rocky Creeks. Approximately 90 percent of the 457-square-kilometer (176-square-mile) watershed drainage area that historically supported the Okaloosa darter is Federal property under the management of Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), including about 98.7 percent of the stream length in the current range of the Okaloosa darter. Eglin AFB encompasses the headwaters of all six of these drainages, and the remainder of these streams flow out of Eglin AFB into the urban complex of the cities of Niceville and Valparaiso (USAF 2022c, p. 3-1; 76 FR 18087, April 1, 2011).
The Okaloosa darter's breeding season extends from late March through October, although it usually peaks in April. Spawning pairs attach small numbers of eggs to vegetation, woody debris, and root mats (Collete and Yerger 1962, p. 226; Burkhead et al. 1994, p. 81); however, little is known about larval development (Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 26). As with most darters, fecundity is low (Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 26). A mean of 76 total ova (eggs) and 29 mature ova were found in 201 female Okaloosa darters, although these numbers may underrepresent annual
Longleaf pine-wiregrass-red oak sandhill communities dominate the vegetation landscape in Okaloosa darter watersheds. These areas are characterized by high sand ridges where soil nutrients are low and woodland fire is a regular occurrence. Where water seeps from these hills, acid bog communities develop, consisting of sphagnum moss (
Okaloosa darter abundance has been quantified by visual census at multiple sites annually since 1995. Densities in 1995 averaged 1.2 (± 0.8; ± 1 standard deviation) Okaloosa darter per meter (3.28 feet) of stream length. In 2005, a rangewide survey estimated the species' population size at 822,500 (95 percent confidence interval: 662,916 to 1,058,009). Repeated rangewide surveys in 2014 and 2020 indicated that overall abundance declined by about 24 percent from 2005 to 2014 and then a further 20 percent in 2020 (Jordan and Jelks 2021, pp. 12). However, 2005 was an unusually good year for the Okaloosa darter, and the 2014 and 2020 estimates likely reflect some declines associated with dense canopy cover.
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall viability of the Okaloosa darter is presented in the SSA report (USFWS 2019, entire; available at
Section 4(f) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available and consideration of the standards listed in 50 CFR 424.11(e) to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently, and that the species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The objective of the Okaloosa darter recovery plan is to restore and protect habitat and stream ecosystems so that Okaloosa darter may be initially downlisted (which occurred in 2011; see 76 FR 18087, April 1, 2011) and eventually delisted. Because the Okaloosa darter is a narrow endemic that occupies the unique habitats of only six stream systems, recovery objectives are focused on habitats within their historical range. The recovery plan states that the Okaloosa darter will be considered for delisting when:
1. (a) All downlisting criteria have been met; (b) historical habitat of all six streams has been restored to support viable populations of Okaloosa darter (including degraded sections of Mill, Swift, and Tom Creeks); (c) erosion at clay pits, road crossings, and steep slopes has been minimized to the extent that resembles historical predisturbance condition; (d) longleaf restoration and watershed management practices on Eglin AFB are in effect; (e) natural, historical flow regimes are maintained; and (f) water quality and riparian habitat have been significantly improved and maintained.
2. (a) Cooperative and enforceable agreements are in place to protect habitat and water quality and quantity for the historical range outside of Eglin AFB; and (b) management plans that protect and restore habitat and water quality and quantity have been effective and are still in place for the 90 percent of the historical range currently managed by Eglin AFB.
3. Okaloosa darter populations at monitoring sites consist of two or more age-classes and remain stable or increasing in all six streams over a period of 20 consecutive years.
4. No foreseeable threats exist that would impact the survival of this species (assumes military mission is compatible).
The following discussion summarizes the recovery criteria and information on recovery actions that have been
The Okaloosa darter is naturally restricted in distribution to six streams, of which about 90 percent of the basins are on Eglin AFB and the remaining 10 percent in the Niceville and Valparaiso, Florida, municipal area. Because of the specific habitat requirements and limited distribution of the darter, habitat that is essential for spawning, rearing, feeding, and cover needs to be restored and protected to prevent the species from declining irreversibly and to recover the species.
Much progress has been made towards actions identified for the Okaloosa darter under this criterion since 2011, when the species was downlisted from endangered to threatened. Erosion into the streams has been reduced to background levels, nearly all fish passage barriers on Eglin AFB have been removed, more than 20 projects have been completed to restore and reconnect stream habitat, and conservation agreements with local landowners have been put in place on private lands to protect stream and floodplain habitat. The Eglin AFB erosion control program, habitat restoration programs, and habitat protections agreed to by private landowners have improved habitat for Okaloosa darter sufficient to partially meet this criterion.
About 90 percent of the 51,397 hectares (127,000 acres) that represent the drainage basins of darter streams are managed by Eglin AFB. Eglin AFB will continue to include management for the Okaloosa darter in the Eglin AFB's integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP), changes to which are reviewed and approved by both the Service and by FWC as specified under the Sikes Act. Eglin AFB has no plans to remove management from the INRMP or limit management within Okaloosa darter watersheds (Hagedorn 2020, pers. comm.). In fact, Eglin AFB is working with the Service to shift prescribed fire management to reduce canopy cover in Okaloosa darter streams to further bolster darter numbers and stabilize monitoring sites with observed declines. Additionally, Eglin AFB has placed protective buffers on Okaloosa darter streams to prevent land use changes and management actions that might adversely affect Okaloosa darter or its habitat, thus protecting 90 percent of the darter's watershed area from impacts (Felix 2020, pers. comm.).
Outside the Eglin AFB boundary, the remaining 485.6 hectares (1,200 acres) of Okaloosa darter habitat are situated in the Niceville-Valparaiso urban complex. Okaloosa darters are found at reduced levels or absent from much of this area. Current stream impacts include erosion, non-point discharge of nutrients and pollutants, impoundment, alteration of flow, and culverting. Conservation agreements and habitat buffering on private property further prevent adverse impacts to an additional 3 to 4 percent
Monitoring for Okaloosa darter has been conducted annually at 21 core sites distributed throughout the range since 1995. In 2005, 2014, and 2020, expanded monitoring efforts of 58 sites were conducted to estimate the population size and inform the status review and species status assessment. Additional monitoring has been conducted to support specific research projects. In general, Okaloosa darter numbers increased in the late 1990s through early 2000s, at which time declines were observed at a subset of sites (Jordan and Jelks 2020, p. 11). Multiple year-classes have been recorded in each of the six watersheds in all years of study, regardless of declines (USFWS 2022, unpublished data). Although declines have been identified in portions of the range, the majority of the declines could be associated with dense canopy cover limiting vegetation and primary productivity in the stream (Jordan and Jelks 2020, p. 10). Eglin AFB natural resource managers are working to shift habitat management activities such as prescribed fire, vegetative spraying, or mechanical timber stand improvement to limit excessive riparian growth along Okaloosa darter streams. Monitoring data will continue to be collected and used to assess and inform management actions in Okaloosa darter watersheds.
Regardless of declines, the overall population estimate for Okaloosa darter was greater than 500,000 individuals in 2020 (Jordan and Jelks 2021, p. 11) and rangewide densities generally remain above 2 darters per meter of inhabited stream (Jordan and Jelks 2021). Maintaining multiple viable populations substantially reduces the risk of species extinction, and future scenario modelling suggests that resiliency and redundancy will remain sufficient to support the viability of the species into the foreseeable future (USFWS 2019, pp. 70-72). This criterion has been fully met.
Potential future threats to the Okaloosa darter are to its habitat, particularly in three of the smaller basins: Mill, Swift, and Deer Moss Creeks. Human activity has degraded physical and chemical habitat quality in these basins, though only the Deer Moss Creek population exhibits declines. Mill Creek is almost entirely within the Eglin AFB golf course, which sponsored a major stream restoration in 2007 that nearly doubled the inhabited stream in this watershed. The golf course has also implemented best management practices (BMPs) for herbicide and pesticide application that limit impacts to Mill Creek. The lower portions of Swift Creek are nearly completely urbanized, but our models show that the restoration of College Pond would nearly double the population size. Stream restoration at College Pond would not only add substantial habitat to the watershed, it would also remove a fish passage barrier to multiple tributaries that are currently unoccupied by the Okaloosa darter. Eglin AFB is currently working with the Service, FWC, and community partners to begin engineering designs for this project.
The portions of Deer Moss Creek outside Eglin AFB are currently subject to development pressure; however, during the FWC endangered species permit process, developments and other actions must show a net benefit to the species before approval by the State. In the case of Deer Moss Creek, a conservation plan was developed that prevents construction in all wetlands, adds an upland buffer that requires bridges that completely span all wetlands, and requires the removal of two fish passage barriers within the watershed, among other provisions (Ruckel Properties 2014, entire). In addition to protections from urbanization in lower Deer Moss Creek, the Niceville wastewater treatment facility was upgraded in 2010, to reduce nutrients in sprayfield effluent. Recent studies at Eglin AFB have found that groundwater transport in the Deer Moss Creek watershed is approximately 12 to 18 years (Landmeyer 2022, 9(5):69), so we expect to observe water quality changes in upcoming years.
Because the range of the Okaloosa darter is almost entirely on Federal lands, nearly all actions in this area were subject to the interagency cooperation requirements of section 7. Following delisting, the protections under section 7 will no longer apply; however, Eglin AFB plans to maintain protections for the Okaloosa darter by maintaining a buffer around Okaloosa darter streams during infrastructure and mission planning (USAF 2022d, appendix K) and by developing enhanced BMPs to limit erosion during construction projects and continuing to monitor stream health (Felix 2020, pers. comm.). Additionally, any action on Federal or private lands that impact wetlands would require permits under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as we can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential stressors to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should be proposed for delisting. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. In this discussion, we summarize the key conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found on the Service website at
To assess the Okaloosa darter's viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency describes the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes). In general, the more redundant and resilient a species is, and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory decision.
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Stressors to Okaloosa darter stem from two main sources: land use and management practices on Eglin AFB and urbanization around the lower reaches of streams outside of Eglin AFB. Urbanization is the greatest threat to the Okaloosa darter, as development leads, through multiple pathways, to pollution, erosion, and sedimentation; altered water flows; and dispersal barriers. Land use and management practices such as road building, timber harvesting, and fire suppression can affect abundance of Okaloosa darters on Eglin AFB. The effects of a changing climate, such as increasing stream temperatures, could become a threat to the Okaloosa darter throughout its geographic range in the future; however,
Sediment loading is perhaps the primary factor continuing to impact the Okaloosa darter. The primary sources of sediment to aquatic ecosystems on Eglin AFB are accelerated streamside erosion, borrow pits (areas where clay, sand, or gravel are removed for use at other locations), developed areas, weapon test ranges, silviculture, and roads (Rainer et al. 2005, p. 1-1). Sedimentation can result from unpaved roads, road crossings, and road or development projects (
Management for the Okaloosa darter is outlined in Eglin AFB's INRMP, which includes specific goals and objectives to improve Okaloosa darter habitat, and Eglin AFB has demonstrated a commitment to recovery of the species. Therefore, management and other conservation actions are much more likely to occur on Eglin AFB than surrounding properties (USFWS 2007, p. 5). These streams on Eglin AFB flow mostly through forested, natural settings, whereas off-installation, they interface mostly with urban and suburban areas. Eglin AFB personnel have implemented this effective habitat restoration program to control erosion from roads, borrow pits, and cleared test ranges. Since 1995, Eglin AFB personnel have restored 317 sites covering 196.2 hectares (484.8 acres) that were eroding into Okaloosa darter streams, including borrow pits and other non-point sources (pollution created from larger processes and not from one concentrated point source, like excess sediment from a construction site washing into a stream after a rain) of stream sedimentation (76 FR 18087, April 1, 2011, p. 18090). Erosion into the streams has been reduced to background levels, nearly all fish passage barriers on Eglin AFB have been removed, several restoration projects have been completed to restore and reconnect stream habitat, and conservation agreements with local landowners (on 3 to 4 percent of potential Okaloosa darter range) have been put in place on private lands to protect stream and floodplain habitat (Wetland Sciences 2011, entire).
Eglin AFB personnel estimate that these and other restoration efforts have reduced soil loss from roughly 69,000 tons per year in Okaloosa darter watersheds in 1994 to approximately 2,500 tons per year in 2010 (Pizzolato 2018, pers. comm.). While soils will always be highly susceptible to disturbance and sedimentation and erosion could impact the species, habitat restoration work has improved Okaloosa darter habitat within the base. Improvements such as bottomless culverts, bridges over streams, and bank restoration and revegetation have resulted in increased clarity of the water, stability of the channel and its banks, and expansion of Okaloosa darter into new areas within drainages (USFWS 2011, 76 FR 18087, April 1, 2011, p. 18090). Poorly designed silviculture programs can result in accelerated soil erosion and stream sedimentation, but Eglin AFB personnel have designed their program within Okaloosa darter habitat to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic ecosystems such that the program is not likely to adversely affect Okaloosa darters (USAF 2022, pp. 4-23; USFWS 2017, pp. 11-12).
Forest and timber management in Okaloosa darter drainages is generally directed toward habitat management for the red-cockaded woodpecker (
Unpaved roads, their low-water stream crossings, and subsequent bank erosion probably have the greatest impact because of their distribution on Eglin AFB, relative permanence as base infrastructure, and long-term soil disturbance characteristics. The largest remaining source of sediment input to Okaloosa darter streams is the unpaved road network, which allows sediment to be washed off the road and into nearby streams, especially where they cross the stream itself. As of 2005, 87 percent (4,348 km) of the roads in Eglin AFB's road network were unpaved, and remain so currently (Felix 2018, pers. comm.).
Road crossings can be detrimental to Okaloosa darter depending on their design. Pipe culverts alter stream flow and impede movement of Okaloosa darter, whereas bridges and bottomless culverts do not. Of the 153 road crossings that previously existed in Okaloosa darter drainages, 57 have been eliminated—28 in Boggy Bayou streams and 29 in Rocky Bayou streams. Although many road crossings have been removed and restored through road closures and restoration efforts over the last few years, others remain and pose a threat to the Okaloosa darter and its habitat. For example, five road crossings in the Turkey Creek drainage have repeatedly exceeded State water quality standards for turbidity (USFWS 2017, p. 11).
Road development projects also present potential threats that may negatively impact the Okaloosa darter. The Mid-Bay Bridge Authority's Mid-Bay Connector Road (Connector Road), a road constructed from the terminus of the Mid-Bay Bridge to SR 85 north of Niceville, was completed in February 2014 (USFWS 2017, p. 13). We completed consultation on this project under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Although the Connector Road crosses Okaloosa darter drainages, conservation measures included 19 stipulations to minimize impacts to darter drainages. For example, the project used environmentally sensitive bridge construction techniques and measures to minimize erosion and ground disturbance at each stream crossing and to maintain channel stability. Because the bridges were designed to maintain natural stream geomorphology and were built using appropriate methods to stabilize stream banks and provide erosion control along the stream, long-term erosion and degradation of Okaloosa darter habitat is not anticipated. Monitoring before, during, and after construction detected no significant project-related changes in abundance of Okaloosa darters above or below any of the new stream crossings (Jordan and Jelks, unpublished data). However, the project impacted multiple areas of Okaloosa darter streams via erosion associated with large storm events and, in 2012, violated erosion controls. One of the stream crossings required a full stream restoration within the project limits and downstream from the project area. Erosion-related issues were also reported in 2013 (USFWS 2017, p. 13). As part of further mitigation of the Connector Road's accumulated negative impacts on the Okaloosa darter, to date the Mid-Bay
The construction of the Connector Road created several relatively small “orphaned” parcels of Eglin AFB-owned property, whereby the road effectively separated those parcels from the natural resources management practices employed elsewhere over the contiguous Eglin AFB reservation properties. Three of these orphan parcels lie within the Okaloosa darter's geographic range (approximately 740, 170, and 260 acres) and surround segments of four occupied streams (Mill, Swift, Turkey, and Deer Moss Creeks). Eglin AFB has historically considered orphan parcels candidates both for leasing through enhanced use agreements and for real property transaction or exchange to public and private entities in order to maximize the effectiveness of its real property in supporting the United States Air Force (USAF) mission. Eglin AFB may consider the three parcels mentioned above for such transactions. However, the Eglin AFB has indicated its intent to coordinate with the Service on the impacts identified in any environmental impact analysis for such transactions (Felix 2018, pers. comm.).
In 2012, the Service issued a biological opinion to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for widening SR 123 from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway from SR 85 South to SR 85 North (USFWS 2017, p. 13). The widening included new two-lane bridges at Toms Creek and Turkey Creek, and replacement of the culvert at the unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek with two single-span bridges. The biological opinion concluded that, while the effects of the project included displacement, injury, and mortality to Okaloosa darters resulting from construction debris, equipment movement, dredge and fill activities, sedimentation, introduction of contaminants, and habitat alteration, it would not jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened Okaloosa darter if certain measures were implemented.
In 2015 and 2016, multiple erosion control failures resulted in sediment from the project site discharging into streams occupied by Okaloosa darters: Toms Creek, Shaw Still Branch, Turkey Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek following storm events. The Service worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FHWA, and the Florida Department of Transportation to develop a restoration and compensation plan, and implementation of the plan began in 2018. The plan was designed to fully offset all impacts and provide a net conservation benefit to the species due to unforeseen, but preventable, impacts. In summer 2017, the Service identified additional impacts of this highway project to steepheads (deep ravines) outside of the initial defined action area for this project (Tate 2018, pers. comm.; USFWS 2017, pp. 13-14). Additionally, a working group including the Service and Eglin AFB was formed to develop BMPs that would prevent erosion events and that would be applied to base projects during site preparation and construction (Tate 2018, pers. comm.). The goal of this effort is to prepare BMPs and language/requirements to be included in the real estate leasing agreements, to help ensure the species' conservation when the Act's protections are removed. The BMPs and any additional requirements will be finalized before any projects move forward; to date, no such projects have been undertaken.
Development and construction activity in residential areas outside of Eglin AFB and primarily in the downstream-most portion of the Okaloosa darter's range pose a threat due to poor stormwater runoff control and pollution prevention measures that degrade habitat and sometimes create barriers to movement between basins. Although this threat is greater in urban areas, recent failures in erosion control and stormwater management on Eglin AFB highlight the importance of thoroughly understanding how proposed activities contribute to erosion and stormwater management problems and implementing practices to minimize those effects (USFWS 2017, p. 11).
For example, in June 2017, a significant stormwater retention pond failure occurred on Eglin AFB property leased to Gulf Power and run by Gulf Coast Solar Center I, LLC (Coronal Energy), for a solar energy project. This failure caused extensive soil loss both on the leased site and offsite on Eglin AFB property. Okaloosa darter habitat in an unnamed tributary to Toms Creek was completely lost to sedimentation, and additional sediment is still located throughout the floodplain. However, this event impacted less than 0.1 percent of the estimated populations involved, and design changes have been made that are expected to fully offset all impacts and provide a net conservation benefit to the species due to unforeseen, but preventable, impacts (USFWS 2017, p. 14).
Borrow pits were a major source of sediment loading to Okaloosa darter streams cited in the 1998 darter recovery plan. At that time, 29 of 39 borrow pits located within or immediately adjacent to Okaloosa darter drainages had been restored. As of 2004, all borrow pits within Okaloosa darter drainages had been restored (59.3 ha; 146.5 ac) (USAF 2022b, pp. 3-18; USFWS 2017, p. 11).
Pollution, other than sedimentation, poses a potential threat to darters. One stream in the darter's range, lower Turkey Creek, is on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (2018) Verified List as impaired, listing iron from a closed landfill as the pollutant (USFWS 2018, entire). Using aquatic insect sampling methods, the Service (Thom and Herod 2005, entire) found 12 sites out of 42 sampled within the darter's range to be impaired. One notable source of pollution in Shaw Still Branch and Deer Moss Creek results from wastewater treatment sprayfields (the Niceville-Valparaiso Regional Effluent Land Application Sprayfield) (USFWS 2017, pp. 12-13). Abundance declines from about 45 Okaloosa darter per 20 meters in the headwaters just above the sprayfield down to 1 or fewer Okaloosa darter per 20 meters in the remaining 4 kilometers or so of stream downstream from the sprayfield (Jordan 2017, pp. 5-7; Jordan 2018, unpublished data, figure 8). The actual pollutant has yet to be determined, but impacted streams have high conductivity compared to the relatively sterile, ion-poor, and slightly acidic streams that are typical of the area and likely similar to streams where the Okaloosa darter evolved. Contaminants found in the portions of Deer Moss Creek exposed to sprayfield effluent were shown to affect the biological processes of other species of fish in those streams (Weil et al. 2012, p. 185). Municipal wastewater with increased conductivity has been shown to negatively affect other species of
Water withdrawals for human consumption in and around the range of the Okaloosa darter are presently served by wells that tap the Floridan Aquifer, which is declining in the most populated areas near the coast (Pascale 1974, pp. 1-2). At this time, there is no evidence that pumping from that aquifer has reduced flows in darter streams (USFWS 2017, p. 13). To the extent that the darter drainages are spring fed (by and large they are fed by seepage), the springs are from the shallow sand and gravel aquifer that is not currently used for human consumption. Additionally, the low permeability of the Pensacola Clay confining bed likely severely limits hydraulic connectivity between the two aquifers (Schumm et al. 1995, p. 288). As long as withdrawals from the sand and gravel aquifer are minimal, local human population growth should not adversely affect water flows in the drainages occupied by the darter (USFWS 2017, p. 13).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, entire). Numerous long-term changes have been observed including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, and widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2014, entire). While continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is unknown in many cases (USFWS 2017, p. 14).
The current occupied range of the darter is restricted to approximately 402 kilometers of streams in Walton and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. While science shows that global-scale increases in stream temperatures have occurred (Kaushal et al. 2010, entire; Song et al. 2018, entire), streams within the Okaloosa darter's range are seepage and spring-fed, and thus thought to be thermally moderated (USFWS 2017, p. 14). However, thermal mediation varies among nearby Okaloosa darter streams, and streams that support Okaloosa darter are strongly affected by increases in air temperature (Jordan 2018, unpublished data). Information required to evaluate whether increased temperatures in streams will adversely affect the Okaloosa darter is lacking; however, declines in abundance following the impoundment of small stream reaches are likely due in part to increased temperatures, and the loss of darters below larger impoundments, such as Brandt Pond and Swift Creek, are generally assumed to be due to temperature change (Jordan 2018, pers. comm.). Because the distribution of the Okaloosa darter is limited, and individuals cannot expand northward, stream temperature increases or sea level rise that would cause stream inundation could pose a threat to the Okaloosa darter by isolating the populations. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2017, entire; NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer 2018) projects sea level rise will be around 1.84 feet by year 2050 (Sweet et al. 2017, Intermediate High scenario). While this increase will not inundate much of the darter's stream systems due to topography, it could isolate the stream systems from each other, limiting genetic exchange (Tate 2018, pers. comm.; NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer 2018). However, the species has maintained genetic exchange among populations despite current and historical saltwater isolation (Austin et al. 2011, p. 987).
Many streams within the range of the Okaloosa darter have a history of impoundment. These impoundments were either deliberately created to produce recreational ponds or unintentionally formed following installation of a poorly designed road crossing. Culverts and other installations can also facilitate the creation of permanent impoundments by North American beavers (
All of the aforementioned threats could pose barriers to dispersal. Road crossings and impoundments, however, create the most obvious barriers, and many of these barriers have been removed. In 2011, when the Okaloosa darter was downlisted to threatened status, 4 of the 153 road crossings and 25 impoundments that were barriers to fish passage remained. A few of these road crossings were culverts with the downstream end perched above the stream bed, precluding the upstream movement of fish during normal and low-flow conditions. However, some of these barriers were determined to have little to no adverse consequence to darter habitat connectivity because they occurred on the outskirts of the current range or were immediately adjacent to another barrier or impoundment.
To date, all but three of the problematic road crossings have been removed. One of these, located at the headwaters of Rocky Creek, is scheduled for removal in upcoming funding cycles (USAF 2022d, appendix K). Additionally, 13 impoundments still exist, 4 of which are caused by beaver activity. Beavers that remain are primarily in the headwater reaches where the Okaloosa darter is either not present or would be in very low density. Nuisance beavers are managed under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USFWS is currently working with Eglin and other partners to secure funding for the restoration of Swift Creek via removal of College Pond (Tate 2020, pers. comm.). Since the time of listing, most of the barriers to dispersal have been removed, and most of the problematic ones that remain are scheduled to be removed, contributing to improved habitat and reduced population fragmentation.
Overhead canopies range from open to fully closed depending on stream width and fire history (Jordan 2018, pers. comm.). Okaloosa darters thrive in reaches with relatively open canopies, likely due to either increased abundance of submerged vegetation that is used preferentially for spawning or increased secondary production of insect prey (Ingram 2018, p. 11). During the past 25 years, several monitored stream sections have changed from open with submerged vegetation to closed canopies with no vegetation. Closed
The introduction and colonization by nonnative, invasive species that could compete with or prey on the Okaloosa darter is a potential threat. The Okaloosa darter recovery plan lists competitive exclusion by the then-thought-to-be invasive brown darter (
The vast majority of the range of the Okaloosa darter is located on Eglin AFB, where many conservation and restoration actions have been successful in restoring the Okaloosa darter to regions from which it had previously been extirpated and increasing darter densities since the time of its listing in 1973. Much progress has been made in implementing conservation actions since the Okaloosa darter was downlisted to threatened in 2011. For example, Eglin AFB has restored more than 534 acres of erosional sites and completed multiple stream restoration projects to reconnect fragmented populations. Stream erosion levels have been reduced, and most of the fish passage barriers have been removed. Many restoration projects have been completed, and conservation agreements have been implemented. Collectively, the habitat restoration programs have restored Okaloosa darter habitat, and management agreements will secure the habitat into the future (USAF 2022, p. 94; Wetland Sciences 2011, entire).
However, portions of the Okaloosa darter's range still face threats, mostly from urbanization. The sedimentation, pollution, and water quality impacts, as well as changes to water flow from impoundments that can result from urbanization, can lead to a decrease in Okaloosa darter numbers. In areas where there is development, either on Eglin AFB main base or the surrounding cities, darters decrease in abundance or disappear (USFWS 2019, p. 23). Darters also still face threats from canopy closure, accidental spills, or other severe events. However, the vast majority of the Okaloosa darter's range is expected to remain under the management of the Air Force, limiting the impacts from urbanization to less than 10 percent of the historical range for the species.
Okaloosa darters react quickly to restoration activities. For instance, erosion control and other restoration activities began earlier in the Boggy Bayou drainages, progressing to the Rocky Bayou drainages (Pizzolato 2018, pers. comm.). Accordingly, darter numbers increased in the Boggy Bayou drainages earlier than in the Rocky Bayou drainages (Jordan and Jelks 2021, p. 9). Okaloosa darters have also been shown to quickly recolonize restored streams (Reeves et al. 2016, entire) and reclaim beaver impoundments (Nicholson 2009, entire).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
For the Okaloosa darter to maintain viability and withstand stochastic disturbance events, its populations must be sufficiently resilient, which is associated with population size, growth rate, and habitat quality. Stochastic events that have the potential to affect the Okaloosa darter include temperature changes, drought, localized pollutants/contaminants or other disturbances, or severe weather events such as hurricanes, which can impact individuals or the habitat they require for critical life functions such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering.
Sufficiently resilient Okaloosa darter populations need quality habitat. Okaloosa darters require clear, clean, flowing water provided by deep layers of sand that regulate temperature and flow, with aquatic vegetation, root mats, leaf snags, and other substrates that provide cover. This habitat is maintained by land management practices on adjacent land that limit sedimentation and pollution. Streams that support Okaloosa darter should be free of impoundments created as human-made retention ponds, by poorly designed road crossings that impede flow and genetic exchange, or by beaver dams. Okaloosa darter also benefit from open riparian canopies that allow sunlight to reach the stream below (Ingram 2018, p. 11).
For analysis purposes, we delineated resiliency units for the Okaloosa darter based on genetic analysis and obvious barriers to dispersal. Genetic variation exists between the six stream systems (Austin et al. 2011, p. 987). Because limited genetic exchange occurs between streams, the population in each stream is likely to be demographically independent; therefore, we used abundance data for each of the six stream systems to assess resiliency.
Additionally, we assessed barriers to dispersal within each stream system that would indicate a further breakdown into additional populations. However, Eglin AFB has been effective in removing impoundments and poorly designed road crossings that served as barriers to dispersal, so the remaining impoundments occur at the headwaters or the lower reaches of each stream, leaving each stream's population mostly intact, allowing genetic exchange to occur within each stream system. Outside of Eglin AFB, Shaw Still Branch has Okaloosa darters that are isolated from other Okaloosa darters in the upper reaches of Swift Creek by College Pond; however, the numbers of darters in this small stream are likely fewer than 150. Therefore, we considered this population separately. The watersheds of each of the bayous (Toms, Boggy, and Rocky) where the species has been historically found constitute the three resiliency units for the purposes of this analysis. The Toms representative unit consists only of the Toms population; the Boggy unit consists of the Turkey and Mill populations; and the Rocky unit consists of the Swift, Deer, and Rocky populations.
Habitat metrics, such as conductivity, other water quality metrics, and management, influence darter presence and abundance, but due to a lack of explained variation within the data, no quantitative predictive model has been successfully used. However, numerous data exist that draw causal relationships between habitat metrics and darter presence and abundance, such that we can draw some conclusions. First, it is clear that the Okaloosa darter does not inhabit impounded stream reaches. Further, when an impounded stream is restored, Okaloosa darter will quickly colonize the restored habitat, often at higher densities than initially found (Jordan and Jelks 2018, p. 29). When water conductivity gets too high, Okaloosa darter abundance drops (USFWS 2019, p. 33).
We assess current resiliency for the Okaloosa darter in terms of population factors, including the species' presence and density. To estimate a population size, we multiplied the estimated average abundance per meter by the estimated meters occupied (USFWS 2019, table 5). The average abundance was derived from annual sampling at each of the 21 core monitoring sites over the past 20 years. In populations with multiple core sites, a grand mean was calculated for the entire population by averaging the long-term means within the population. Due to statistical constraints, population estimates using the expanded monitoring data from 2005 and 2014 only estimate the population of darters present in stream reaches between monitoring sites (USFWS 2019, p. 23) and do not include headwaters and tributary systems known to be inhabited. The calculations made during the SSA and used for this assessment apply the average abundance to all known inhabited stream reaches, generally producing a larger but more complete population estimate.
Using this method, the total rangewide population estimate of the Okaloosa darter is approximately 500,000 (see table 1, below). The Rocky Creek population is the largest, comprising 713,458 darters, or 57 percent of this total, followed by the Turkey Creek population, comprising 490,456 darters, or 39 percent. The other four resiliency units (Toms, Mill, Swift, and Deer Moss Creeks) together total only 4 percent of the estimate: Toms Creek has an estimated 23,099 darters; Mill Creek, 1,317; Swift Creek, 18,810; and Deer Moss Creek, 2,353.
These numbers reflect a significant (40 percent) decline between 2005 and 2014. However, the population is still significantly greater than when the species was originally listed. Our professional judgment is that the reduction was caused by an increase in the canopy cover and that more aggressive clearing of the canopy cover will result in rebounding population numbers. This conclusion is consistent with experimental data, in which darter populations increased within months after canopy removal.
We classified resiliency by species' presence, density, and population sizes. Population sizes of fewer than 10,000 Okaloosa darters are considered “low,” 10,000 to 50,000 are “moderate,” and more than 50,000 are “high” resiliency. Based on the population numbers presented above, the results of the resiliency analysis are as follows: Two of the populations (Turkey and Rocky) currently have high resiliency, two (Toms and Swift) have moderate resiliency, and two (Deer Moss and Mill) are considered to have low resiliency.
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. Measured by the number of populations, their resiliency, and their distribution (and connectivity), redundancy gauges the probability that the species has a margin of safety to withstand or to bounce back from catastrophic local events such as collapse of a restored borrow pit, infestation by beavers, or spill of toxic chemicals that affect part or all of one population. We report redundancy for the Okaloosa darter as the total number of populations and the resiliency of population segments and their distribution within and among representative units. Also, there are
Six populations comprise the vast majority of the historical range of the Okaloosa darter within the three representative units. Redundancy is demonstrated through the darter's presence in multiple tributaries within most watersheds, and representation is demonstrated through the genetic structure of the populations. All six extant populations exhibit genetic differentiation, and the species is extant across all three representation units. Adequate redundancy is demonstrated through the darter's presence in multiple tributaries within most watersheds encompassing its historical range.
Representation can be characterized by genetic variability within the range of the species. These three representative units, each identified as containing unique and significant historical variation (Austin et al. 2011, pp. 983, 987), have not been reduced over time. The Toms Bayou representative unit comprises just the Toms population, which is currently considered moderately resilient. However, the Toms population is vulnerable to upstream impacts, which could affect the representation of this unit were a major impact to occur. The Boggy Bayou representative unit comprises the Turkey and Mill populations, of which Turkey is considered highly resilient and has low vulnerability. The Rocky Bayou unit comprises the Swift, Deer Moss, and Rocky populations, of which Swift is considered moderately resilient and Rocky is considered highly resilient with low vulnerability. Given that each unit still contains at least one population that is moderately or highly resilient (>10,000 individuals), the Okaloosa darter has sufficient genetic variability. Representation is demonstrated through the genetic structure of the populations.
The biggest potential threat to the Okaloosa darter in the future is development on and off Eglin AFB. Neighborhoods, roads, commercial structures, and associated utilities such as sprayfields are potential sources of sedimentation, pollution, and altered stream flow throughout the range of this species. Natural factors resulting from long-term forest management practices (
While there are several restoration activities, developments, or other proposed activities that have anticipated locations and quantifiable outcomes, specific information on the location, and therefore the effects to the Okaloosa darter, of other potential threats are unknown. Therefore, because it is impossible to predict the specific locations or impacts of future developments or other management decisions that could impact Okaloosa darter streams, we assess the future resiliency of each population based on general management and development scenarios. Accordingly, to assess the future viability of the Okaloosa darter, we considered four future scenarios that account for some degree of future development and restoration activities, considering effects of whether these activities are implemented or not; we also considered general impacts from unknown future management or land use changes or impacts, at varying levels with positive or negative impacts to each population. For each population, we consider its current condition, including the length of each stream that is unimpounded, the length considered occupied, and the average abundance per meter, to assess the future viability under each of these scenarios. Please see the SSA report (USFWS 2019, entire) for a more detailed discussion of these considerations.
We projected these future scenarios both over 20 years and 50 years. Any planned restoration efforts, should they be realized, as well as the impending development along Deer Moss Creek, would likely be completed in 20 years. Okaloosa darters respond very quickly to habitat changes, both good and bad. Improved conditions would result in an increase in Okaloosa darters, possibly within the same year (Reeves et al. 2016, pp. 1379-1382), but areas can also lose Okaloosa darters equally quickly if habitat conditions worsen. In some cases where habitat is restored in areas without nearby Okaloosa darters, 20 years would be sufficient to ensure that they would recolonize that area. Not only would 20 years encompass several generations of Okaloosa darter, but it is the time period outlined in the recovery plan for delisting. We projected to 50 years as it is considered the outer limit that projections of base realignment, hydrologic cycles, and climate alteration may be relied upon, based on expert opinion, and will encompass a timeframe in which projected sea level rise as a result of climate change could have realized impacts.
To account for the uncertainty in the management implications of some proposed actions (Deer Moss Creek development and cleanup of the sprayfields) and other unforeseen/unknown future conditions (future land management/development and accidents), we generalize the future stream conditions/management in four categories: status quo (current conditions continue), ideal, poor, and worst. The “ideal,” or “best-case,” scenario assumes that all potential stream habitat is colonized at normal densities. “Poor” management assumes that accidents stemming from errors in management may occur but are unlikely to affect the population in the worst possible place or are unlikely to have a high-magnitude impact; however, over time, these accidents add up and eventually have a larger impact. “Worst” management assumes that accidents stemming from errors in management occur and affect the population in a location that will affect the largest portion of the stream or will be of such a magnitude to have a similar effect. In all long-term scenarios, we anticipate the potential negative impacts of climate change by applying reductions in population estimates of 0.5 standard deviations from the current population mean abundance.
Below, we assess the future resiliency of Okaloosa darter populations both in the short (20-year) and long term (50-year) for the four different scenarios. Of the four scenarios, the status quo and the ideal scenario are the most likely to occur. The poor and worst management are the least likely to occur. Because these four scenarios encompass the broad changes to management, which would encompass water quality and render land ownership irrelevant, we model future resiliency based on how each scenario would affect the amount of occupied habitat and average abundance estimates within each population. Please see the SSA report (USFWS 2019, entire) for further description of the methodologies we
In this scenario, we modeled current management coupled with both no restoration efforts (1a) and with restoration of the beaver dams on Toms Creek and College Pond on Swift Creek (1b). Under scenario 1a, nothing changed by way of management or restoration, meaning the impounded stream and abundance estimates stayed the same as the current estimates. The development of Deer Moss Creek did not affect the resiliency of this population because the section of stream that would be developed is currently, and remains, unoccupied. For the species as a whole, population estimates did not change much in the short term but decreased in the long term due to a loss of potential habitat (due to sea level rise resulting in stream inundation) and other possible climate-related threats, which we modeled as a 0.5 standard deviation reduction for each population. Not surprisingly, the smallest and most fragmented populations, Mill, Deer Moss, Toms, and Swift Creeks, are potentially susceptible to climate change impacts alone. Habitat restoration in Toms and Swift Creeks (scenario 1b) would offset our modelled impacts from climate change. Even though saltwater inundation will fragment about 5 percent of the two large populations in Turkey and Rocky Creeks, our models exhibited minimal loss of resiliency as a result of climate change under this scenario.
For the species as a whole, our modelling suggested that, under current management conditions, there are likely to be nearly 1 million Okaloosa darters beyond the 50-year timeframe. In the long term under this scenario, Mill Creek would lose over 30 percent of its population (dropping below 1,000), as would Deer Moss and Toms Creek, unless restoration occurs. Swift Creek would lose almost 60 percent of its population unless habitat restoration occurs, but if restoration occurs (scenario 1b), the population would more than double in the short term and still increase by nearly 60 percent in the long term. Saltwater inundation in the long term would cause the Rocky, Turkey, and Swift populations to split into three streams each. While Rocky and Turkey would see about 5 percent of their populations cut off from the main segment, the inundation of Swift Creek would also cut off that population from the current location in the absence of restoration efforts. With no restoration, we can expect that 70 percent of the population in Swift Creek will be above College Pond in Swift Creek, with fewer than 100 in Shaw Still Branch, although neither of these populations are unlikely to remain at all in 50 years. With restoration, about 83 percent of the population would remain in the Swift Creek population and about 17 percent in a Shaw Still Branch population, with likely no dispersal between them (see table 2, below). Due to the continued impacts of urbanization in the watershed within the city of Niceville, we estimated population sizes as if inhabited under moderate management conditions (long-term average minus one standard deviation). Sanders Branch would remain unoccupied.
This scenario represented the highest population size that the species could attain. Under this scenario, all impoundments were removed, and management removed most existing threats, increasing the occupied lengths of each stream to almost all of the inhabitable area. In other words, we modelled the potential population for all streams as if they were completely free-flowing by applying our current population estimates to the entire potential length of stream habitat in the watershed. This scenario represented the “best case scenario” for the species. Because of this, we modelled an expected population expansion of 1.0 standard deviation from the current mean abundance for each population.
In the short term, the population would increase for all stream systems, although by a much higher percent in Mill and Swift Creeks than in Rocky and Turkey Creeks. In the long term, all populations except Turkey and Rocky Creeks still see an increase from current conditions, though not quite as large. Turkey and Rocky Creeks would decrease slightly from the current situation (see table 3, below). Saltwater inundation in the long term would cause the Rocky, Turkey, and Swift stream systems to split into three streams each. While Rocky and Turkey Creeks would see about 5 percent of their populations cut off from the main segment, the inundation of Swift Creek in the long term, given ideal restoration and management, would split the population such that about 15 percent would be cut off into a Shaw Still Branch population, and about 11 percent would be cut off into a Sanders Branch population.
To model what the future effect of poor management decisions, developments, or other habitat impacts would be in terms of a decrease in average Okaloosa darter abundance per meter, we considered the configuration (or geography) of each stream system for each population. In streams that are complex (have many branching tributaries) or are generally large, a severe negative impact (such as a chemical spill or source of chronic sedimentation) at any of the headwaters would be more likely to impact a smaller percentage of the population compared to a similar impact in the headwaters of a low-complexity (few tributaries) or small stream system. For scenarios 3 and 4, we first assessed the effects of an impact that might occur at the worst possible placement within each watershed by finding the longest length of stream that could be affected by a major impact at the headwaters; in other words, the longest possible downstream distance that could be affected by a single upstream impact. We calculated this distance for each stream (USFWS 2019, figure 14) and then took that distance and calculated the percent of the total unimpounded streams it would affect (USFWS 2019, table 7). This percent represents the maximum percent of the stream system that could be affected by one management decision or development. In real-world terms, if one of the outlying airfields that are located in the upper reaches of these stream systems (USFWS 2019, figure 14) were to be reactivated for military or other uses, the amount of stream impacted could come close to or meet these estimates of “largest percent affected.”
For both the “poor” and “worst” management scenarios, we used this “largest percent affected” to model declines in Okaloosa darter abundances based on whether management was considered “poor” or “worst,” and whether we were assessing the scenario in the long or short term (USFWS 2019, table 8).
For management that was “poor,” looking at the short term, we considered a management decision or set of decisions or impacts that would decrease the average abundance by 1.0 standard deviation across this “largest percent affected” (this percent of the occupied meters). The remainder of the occupied stream length stayed at current Okaloosa darter abundances. In the long term, we proposed that management impacts could continue to affect these streams either in unfortunate locations or in great magnitude and, coupled with
Under this scenario (see table 4, below), all population sizes decreased. In the long term, the Swift population dropped below 10,000 individuals unless College Pond is restored, in which case the population almost doubled in the short term and still maintained 15 percent more than current in the long term. In the long term, the Swift Creek population dropped below 10,000 individuals without restoration, and the populations in both Deer Moss and Mill Creeks dropped below 1,000 individuals. Even so, long-term resiliency in Toms, Turkey, Swift, and Rocky Creeks remained relatively unchanged from the “status quo” models.
This scenario is very pessimistic. We considered a management decision or set of decisions or impacts that would decrease the average abundance by 2.0 standard deviations across the “largest percent affected,” described above. The remainder of the occupied stream length in Scenario 4 was then considered to be occupied at the “poor” Okaloosa darter abundances (a reduction of 1.0 standard deviation). As with other scenarios, we modeled climate change impacts as an additional reduction of 0.5 standard deviations from the long-term mean and considered the impact of restoration in Toms and Swift Creeks in a separate model.
This is the only scenario where we modelled an extirpation. All populations were reduced by at least 20 percent, even in the short term (see table 5, below). Under this scenario, Mill and Deer Moss Creeks dropped below 1,000 individuals in the short term, and Deer Moss Creek became extirpated in the long term. We estimated a population decline in Toms Creek to approximately half the population estimate of the “status quo” scenario. Our model projected that Swift Creek could drop to approximately one quarter of the population anticipated under the “status quo”; however, the restoration of College Pond would prevent this population from dropping below 10,000 individuals in the short term and more than quadruple the population estimate in the long term. The Turkey and Rocky Creeks' populations would maintain high resiliency, above 300,000 individuals, even in the long term.
Our projections of how resiliency will change in the future are based on the completion or success of specific restoration efforts, nonspecific changes to the management of Okaloosa darter streams or other unforeseen impacts, and the effects of climate change, including unknown effects to the streams from temperature increases, drought, frequent or heavy rainfalls, or invasive species. Our models showed population increases only under “ideal restoration, good management,” with the exception of restoration efforts on Swift Creek, which increase the population even under the “poor” management scenario. We also took a pessimistic approach to climate change impacts by applying population reductions to all populations in the long-term models. Accordingly, population numbers declined in the long-term models across all stream systems in the absence of future management efforts. Both Mill Creek and Deer Moss Creek remained at low resiliency and decreased to fewer than 1,000 individuals or became extirpated in the long term under the “poor” and “worst” scenarios. Toms Creek maintained a moderate resiliency in all but the “worst” scenario. Swift Creek would see a huge benefit from the removal of beaver impoundments in College Pond, which even under “poor” management conditions, would almost double its population size in the short term. In the long term, restoring College Pond resulted in the most robust population gains, roughly quadrupling population estimates under “poor” and “worst” scenarios. Even under the worst projected management or impact scenario, the estimated sizes of Rocky and Turkey populations did not drop below 300,000, and resiliency in these populations remained exceptionally high.
In general, in our scenarios, the larger populations were more resilient and more likely than small populations to maintain resiliency in the future. The Deer Moss population is considered to have a low resiliency in comparison to the other populations; however, even under ideal conditions, our models suggested that this population can increase to only about 4,000 individuals, which remains below our designation of moderate resiliency. So, even under “ideal” conditions, this population will always have low resiliency. Regardless, the Deer Moss Creek population has persisted over time, even with a much lower resiliency than the other populations. When comparing model outcomes to the most likely future scenario, “status quo,” we do not see shifts in resiliency categorization for any of the populations. Only under the “worst” scenario were the resiliency for Toms and Swift Creeks depressed, indicating that the two large populations, Turkey and Rocky, should maintain high to very high resiliency in perpetuity. From a population standpoint, a reduction of 2.5 standard deviations from the long-term mean is massive and highly unlikely, indicating the “worst” scenario is a depiction of a truly catastrophic decline. Even under this scenario, five of the six populations remain. At the species level, Okaloosa darter exhibits moderate to high resiliency even under the worst-case scenario.
Determined by the number of populations, their resiliency, and their distribution (and connectivity), redundancy describes the probability the species has a margin of safety to withstand or recover from catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving many populations). The Okaloosa darter has a constrained range, limited to just six populations in six streams, and redundancy is naturally low. However, the Okaloosa darter inhabits its historical range almost completely, exhibiting documented resiliency to natural phenomena such as hurricanes and drought (USFWS 2019, p. 23).
Four of the populations, the ones with the lowest current resiliency, are considered highly vulnerable to catastrophic events due to their stream configuration. We determined the “largest percent affected” in Mill Creek to be 90 percent (USFWS 2019, table 7).
All representative units are predicted to retain the same number of populations at least 50 years into the future, except in the scenario where management is particularly bad (“worst” scenario). In the “worst” scenario, the Deer Moss population becomes extirpated, and the Mill population experiences heavy declines. In both the “poor” and “worst” scenarios, each representative unit will have populations with decreased resiliency, both within the next 20 years (short term) and next 50 years (long term); however, even under the “worst” scenario, the two large populations (Turkey Creek and Rocky Creek) will maintain resiliency. The Toms Creek population, being the only population in its representative unit, will see decreased resiliency in the short term in two (“poor” and “worst”) of the scenarios, and in the long term in three scenarios (all except “ideal restoration, good management”).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. For a more detailed discussion on the factors considered when determining whether a species meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species and our analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future in making these decisions, please see Regulatory and Analytical Framework, above.
The Okaloosa darter is a narrow endemic, occurring in six stream systems in Walton and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. Okaloosa darters currently occur within all six historical watersheds. Populations in two of those watersheds are currently highly resilient, two are moderately resilient, and two have low resiliency. While the populations have been affected by impoundments, urbanization (on the lower ends of the streams), and land use impacts (
In considering whether the species continues to meet the Act's definition of a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future) throughout its range, we identified the foreseeable future for the Okaloosa darter to be 20 to 50 years based on our ability to reliably determine that the threats are likely and predict the species' response to current and future threats. Over 90 percent of the darter's range is located on Eglin AFB and will continue to benefit from the conservation protections resulting from the Eglin AFB INRMP. Overall, while there may be some loss of resiliency due to climate change, in all but the worst-case scenario, all extant populations will remain. Redundancy will remain the same except under the worst-case scenario, as will representation. Under all four management scenarios, two darter populations (Turkey Creek and Rocky Creek) are expected to continue to be highly resilient. Toms Creek will continue to be moderately resilient in all but the worst-case scenario, in which case its resilience will fall to low. The currently uninhabited tributaries in the Swift Creek watershed will continue to be isolated due to sea level rise, and without restoration, Swift Creek itself will be the only occupied tributary in this population; however, the upper Swift Creek population will continue to serve as a source for recolonization if restoration occurs. Deer Moss Creek is the only population with potential for extirpation, and then only under the worst-case scenario. Further, this population exhibits low resiliency even under “ideal” conditions, and its extirpation would not compromise the resiliency of the Rocky Creek representative unit. In other words, while some populations may decline or even become extirpated under the two negative scenarios, under all scenarios the Okaloosa darter will exhibit sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation to maintain viability for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we conclude that the species is not likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that the Okaloosa darter is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all of its range in the foreseeable future, we proceed to evaluating whether it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or likely
In undertaking this analysis for the Okaloosa darter, we chose to address the status question first—we considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces, to identify any portions of the range where the species is endangered or threatened. We examined whether any threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale. It is important to note at the outset that this is a narrow endemic with a naturally limited range. We examined the following threats: urbanization, land use and management practices on Eglin AFB, and sea level rise around the southern reaches of watersheds.
Urbanization is the greatest threat to the Okaloosa darter, as development leads, through multiple pathways, to pollution, erosion, sedimentation, altered water flows, and dispersal barriers. However, because over 90 percent of the range of the Okaloosa darter will continue to be managed under the Eglin AFB INRMP, we expect management to improve overall conditions for the species across its range. Because populations of the Okaloosa darter within Eglin AFB will continue to benefit from the conservation protections, where urbanization is not considered to be a current or future threat, our analysis focuses on southern portions of watersheds outside of Eglin AFB as a portion of the range that may have a different status. This portion overlaps with three populations of Okaloosa darter: Swift, Deer Moss, and Mill Creeks. Of these, Swift Creek rangewide currently has moderate resiliency with increasing population size now and into the future in all scenarios. Both Deer Moss and Mill Creeks rangewide are considered to have low resiliency with decreasing population size now, with the potential for extirpation in the future without proper management. Because of the current and projected future status of the Deer Moss and Mill Creeks populations, and because sea level rise will only affect the populations of Okaloosa darter within this portion, our analysis indicates that the status of this portion of the range (
We then proceeded to consider whether this portion of the range (Deer Moss and Mill Creeks) is significant. The Service's most recent definition of “significant” within agency policy guidance has been invalidated by court order (see
This portion (Deer Moss and Mill Creeks' populations) represents a small portion (approximately 2 and 1 percent, respectively) of the Okaloosa darter's range. Although these populations contribute to the rangewide representation and redundancy of the darter, this portion does not constitute a large geographic area relative to the range as a whole. Additionally, this portion does not contribute high-quality habitat or constitute high-value habitat (
Overall, we found no substantial information that would indicate this portion of the Okaloosa darter's range is significant in terms of the above habitat considerations. As a result, we determined that this portion does not represent a significant portion of the Okaloosa darter's range. Therefore, we conclude that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in any significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. This finding does not conflict with the courts' holdings in
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Okaloosa darter does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we are delisting (removing) the Okaloosa darter from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This final rule will revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) and 17.44(bb) by removing the Okaloosa darter from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and removing the section 4(d) rule for this species. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act will no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the Okaloosa darter. However, approximately 90 percent of the 457-square-kilometer (176-square-mile) watershed drainage area that historically supported the Okaloosa darter is Federal property under the management of Eglin AFB, and about 98.7 percent of the stream length in the current range of the Okaloosa darter is within the boundaries of Eglin AFB.
As discussed above, Eglin AFB encompasses the headwaters of all six of these drainages. Benefits from conservation protections will continue because the Air Force will maintain its INRMP for the benefit of other listed species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (USAF 2022c, p. 3-1). Thus, the INRMP will continue to provide for the conservation of the Okaloosa darter even if the species is delisted. Because the Service is required to approve INRMPs every 5 years, we will be able to ensure that this INRMP continues to protect the habitat and resources required by the Okaloosa darter into the future. There is no critical habitat designated for this
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to ensure that the species' status does not deteriorate, and that if a decline is detected, measures are taken to halt the decline so as to avoid the need for us to propose listing of the species again. If at any time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as appropriate to implement an effective PDM plan for the Okaloosa darter. The PDM plan was developed based upon current research and effective management practices that have improved the status of the species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species is a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan has identified measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in Okaloosa darter's numbers, distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM participants, will investigate causes of the declines. The investigation will be to determine if the Okaloosa darter warrants expanded monitoring or additional protection under the Act.
We are delisting the Okaloosa darter based on all six extant populations exhibiting genetic differentiation and the species being extant across all three representation units. Overall, the populations are robust. Because approximately 90 percent of the species' range is under the management of Eglin AFB, urbanization will have little to no future effect. The Okaloosa darter occurs in multiple stream systems, and no long-term threats are presently impacting the Okaloosa darter at the species level. Since delisting is, in part, due to conservation actions taken by stakeholders, we have developed a PDM plan for the Okaloosa darter. The PDM plan discusses the current status of the taxon and describes the methods that will be implemented for monitoring following delisting. The PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of the Okaloosa darter at the time of delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods and sampling regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6) defines a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered status of the Okaloosa darter.
The Service prepared this PDM plan in coordination with Eglin AFB, based largely on monitoring methods developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and Loyola University New Orleans (USFWS 2021, p. 5). The Service designed the PDM plan to detect substantial changes in habitat occupied by the Okaloosa darter and declines in Okaloosa darter occurrences with reasonable certainty and precision. It meets the minimum requirement set forth by the Act because it will monitor the status of the Okaloosa darter using a structured sampling regime over a 10-year period.
The final PDM plan for the Okaloosa darter can be accessed at
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3207 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. There are no Tribes or Tribal lands affected by this final rule.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management is proposing regulations on behalf of the President's Pay Agent to change the geographic boundaries of General Schedule locality pay areas. The proposed changes in locality pay area definitions would be applicable on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2024, subject to issuance of final regulations. The locations proposed for inclusion in a locality pay area separate from the Rest of U.S. locality pay area have all met criteria previously recommended by the Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent for nationwide use in the locality pay program.
We must receive comments on or before July 28, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
•
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at
Joe Ratcliffe by email at
The proposed changes in locality pay area definitions include linking geographic boundaries of locality pay areas to the updated definitions of metropolitan statistical areas and combined statistical areas (MSAs and CSAs) in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 20-01; establishing four new locality pay areas having pay disparities significantly exceeding that for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area over an extended period; and changing the criteria by which locations adjacent to an MSA or CSA comprising a basic locality pay area can be included in the locality pay area as an area of application. (The terms
The four new locality pay areas proposed are Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA; Reno-Fernley, NV; Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY; and Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID. Locality pay rates for these four areas would be set by the President after they have been established by regulation as new locality pay areas.
Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty stations in the United States and its territories and possessions. Section 5304(f) of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas are based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The Pay Agent considers the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President appoints the members of the Council, which submits annual recommendations to the Pay Agent about the administration of the locality pay program, including the geographic boundaries of locality pay areas. (The Federal Salary Council's recommendations are posted on the OPM website at
This proposal provides notice and requests comments on proposed regulations to implement the Pay Agent's plan to define GS locality pay areas geographically based on the updated definitions of metropolitan statistical areas and combined statistical areas (MSAs and CSAs) in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 20-01; to establish four new locality pay areas having pay disparities significantly exceeding that for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area over an extended period; and to change the criteria by which locations adjacent to an MSA or CSA comprising a basic locality pay area are included in locality pay areas as areas of application. (The terms
As explained in the Federal Salary Council's October 14, 2022, report to the Pay Agent, a locality pay area separate from the Rest of U.S. locality pay area consists of a
OMB-defined metropolitan areas are called CBSAs and are currently grouped into three categories: micropolitan statistical areas, where the largest included urban area has a population of 10,000 to 49,999; MSAs, where the largest included urban area has a population of 50,000 or more; and CSAs, which are composed of two or more adjacent CBSAs with an employment interchange measure of at least 15 percent. (The employment interchange measure is the sum of the percentage of workers living in the smaller entity who work in the larger entity and the percentage of employment in the smaller entity that is accounted for by workers who reside in the larger entity.) OMB-defined metropolitan areas have been the basis of locality pay area boundaries since locality pay was first implemented in 1994. OMB periodically updates its definitions of CBSAs, and current regulations defining locality pay areas link the geographic definitions of locality pay areas to MSAs and CSAs as delineated in OMB Bulletin No. 18-03
As explained in the Pay Agent's December 2022 annual report, the Pay Agent has tentatively approved the use in the locality pay program of the MSAs and CSAs delineated in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01
Locality pay is set by comparing GS and non-Federal pay rates for the same levels of work in each locality pay area. Non-Federal salary survey data used to set locality pay rates are collected by BLS. Historically, the Federal Salary Council and President's Pay Agent have not been able to study non-Federal pay and establish separate locality pay areas in all the many metropolitan areas with GS employees. However, the current salary survey methodology, which was first used in 2012, provides more location coverage than the previous methodology by combining data sources from two previously existing BLS products—
Based on its review of pay disparities using NCS/OEWS data and calculated for all Rest of U.S. research areas, the Council has recommended new locality pay areas be established for four metropolitan areas with pay gaps averaging more than 10 percentage points above that for the Rest of U.S. locality pay area over an extended period. The President's Pay Agent has agreed to propose regulations that would establish the four new locality pay areas by modifying 5 CFR 531.603(b) accordingly. The four new locality pay areas proposed are Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA; Reno-Fernley, NV; Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY; and Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID. Locality pay rates for the four new locality pay areas would be set by the President at a later date should the locality pay areas be established by final regulation.
Stakeholders should note that Rest of U.S. locations that we have not proposed for establishment as new locality pay areas have not met the pay disparity criterion by which locality pay areas are established. Such locations are either established Rest of U.S. research areas that have not met the pay disparity criterion referred to above or are locations that have not been established as Rest of U.S. research areas. Stakeholders should also note that establishment of Rest of U.S. research areas historically has not been on a case-by-case basis in response to stakeholder requests. When the Council began using the NCS/OES (now NCS/OEWS) model in 2012, selection of Rest of U.S. research areas was limited to MSAs and CSAs having 2,500 or more GS employees. Starting in 2022, the Council has now begun to request that BLS deliver NCS/OEWS estimates for areas that had fewer than 2,500 GS employees, and so far BLS resources have allowed for delivery of NCS/OEWS estimates for 10 such CBSAs. Those 10 CBSAs had the highest levels of GS employment among areas not previously established as Rest of U.S. research areas. Two of those new Rest of U.S. research areas—Reno, NV, and Rochester, NY—met the pay disparity criterion mentioned above and thus are proposed here as new locality pay areas. (Fresno, CA, and Spokane, WA, had already been established as Rest of U.S. research areas but did not meet the pay disparity criterion prior to the Council issuing its October 14, 2022, report.)
It should also be noted that BLS has said it is not feasible for the NCS/OEWS model to produce reliable salary estimates for micropolitan statistical areas or rural counties. In addition, the data for any additional MSAs and CSAs evaluated as potential new Rest of U.S. research areas are subject to BLS validation and testing. Thus, it is possible that data from some MSAs or CSAs not yet evaluated as potential Rest of U.S. research areas may not pass such validation and testing and may not meet
We support the Council's plans to continue its work with BLS to determine whether additional locations can be established as Rest of U.S. research areas. The Pay Agent looks forward to hearing of future progress on increasing the capacity to monitor pay disparities in more areas but also has urged the Council to continue proceeding with caution on this work to ensure pay disparity data for any additional MSAs or CSAs are as accurate as possible in the context of current methodology.
As mentioned above, locality pay areas consist of (1) the MSA or CSA comprising the basic locality pay area, and (2) where criteria recommended by the Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent are met, areas of application. Areas of application are locations that are adjacent to the basic locality pay area and meet approved criteria for inclusion in the locality pay area. Those criteria are explained below.
Since 2005, the criteria by which CBSAs or counties adjacent to a basic locality pay area have been evaluated for possible inclusion in the locality pay area as areas of application have been as follows: For adjacent CSAs and adjacent multi-county MSAs, the criteria are 1,500 or more GS employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. For adjacent single counties, the criteria are 400 or more GS employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. The employment interchange rate is defined as the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the area under consideration who work in the basic locality pay area and the percentage of the employment in the area under consideration that is accounted for by workers who reside in the basic locality pay area. (The employment interchange rate is calculated by including all workers in assessed locations, not just Federal employees.)
The Pay Agent has tentatively agreed with the Council that the following criteria should be used for evaluating CBSAs or counties that are adjacent to the basic locality pay area as potential areas of application and that the GS employment criteria currently used in evaluating such locations should be eliminated:
• For a CBSA (includes single-county CBSAs other than single-county micropolitan areas) adjacent to a basic locality pay area, an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent with the basic locality pay area.
• For a county that is not part of a CBSA or comprises a single-county micropolitan area and is adjacent to a basic locality pay area, an employment interchange rate of at least 20 percent with the basic locality pay area.
• For a county that is adjacent to multiple locality pay areas and does not meet the 20 percent employment interchange threshold with respect to any single locality pay area, a sum of employment interchange rates of at least 20 percent with the adjacent basic locality pay areas. Such a county would be added to the locality pay area with which it has the greatest degree of employment interchange.
This proposed rule reflects application of those criteria to all locations throughout the country.
The Pay Agent also has criteria for evaluating Federal facilities that cross county lines into a separate locality pay area. Those criteria do not change under this proposal and are as follows: To be included in an adjacent locality pay area, the whole facility under consideration must have at least 500 GS employees, with the majority of those employees in the higher-paying locality pay area, or that portion of a Federal facility outside of a higher-paying locality pay area must have at least 750 GS employees, the duty stations of the majority of those employees must be within 10 miles of the separate locality pay area, and a significant number of those employees must commute to work from the higher-paying locality pay area.
It has been the practice in the locality pay program in recent years to include a location completely bordered by land that is included in higher-paying locality pay areas in the adjacent locality pay area with which the location has the greatest degree of employment interchange. We agree with the Council that this practice should continue. Thus, we also agree with the Council that Emporia City, VA—a U.S. county equivalent surrounded geographically by Greensville County, VA—should be included in the Richmond, VA, locality pay area as an area of application. (Greensville County would be included in the Richmond, VA, locality pay area as an area of application because it is adjacent to the Richmond, VA, basic locality pay area and has a 23.36 percent rate of employment interchange with the Richmond, VA MSA.)
This proposal also reflects our tentative agreement with the Council that the following locations bordered only by water and higher-paying locality pay areas should be included in higher-paying locality pay areas because we share the Council's view that they are similar to locations completely bordered by land that is included in higher-paying locality pay areas: Dukes and Nantucket Counties, MA, which would be included in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT locality pay area as areas of application; Huron County, MI, which would be included in the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI, locality pay area as an area of application; and Pacific and San Juan Counties, WA, which would be included in the Seattle-Tacoma, WA, locality pay area as areas of application.
It has been the practice in the locality pay program to retain in their current locality pay area locations that would otherwise be redesignated as part of a lower-paying locality pay area due to application of approved criteria. However, situations involving such locations must be monitored over time. As pay levels and locations comprising locality pay areas change over time, the situation with respect to a retained location can change so that it should no longer be retained in a locality pay area but rather should be placed as it would be otherwise based on standard criteria. In our view, such is the case with respect to Windham County, CT, which we propose be included in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT locality pay area. In 2016, the Pay Agent retained Windham County, CT, in the Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA locality pay area, even though under OMB Bulletin No. 13-01 (which had just been approved for use in the locality pay program) the county had been redesignated from the Hartford CSA to the Boston CSA. The Pay Agent took that action because otherwise the county would have been redesignated to the Boston locality pay area, which then had a lower locality pay percentage than the Hartford locality pay area. However, since January 2023, the locality pay percentage for the Boston locality pay area has exceeded that for the Hartford locality pay area. Considering that, and because Windham County is currently part of the OMB-defined CSA the Boston basic locality pay area is based on, we are proposing the county be redesignated to the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT locality pay area.
Strict application of standard criteria can also be problematic in situations where a new locality pay area would be adjacent to an existing locality pay area that contains locations that would be
In addition to the Rest of U.S. locations the Council listed in its October 14, 2022, report as impacted by its recommendations on the criteria for areas of application, Caroline County, VA, which is currently in the Richmond, VA, locality pay area, would be included in the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay area under this proposed rule.
While Caroline County, VA, is part of the basic Richmond, VA, locality pay area as previously defined using OMB Bulletin No. 18-03, it is not part of the Richmond, VA, basic locality pay area as defined using OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 nor is it part of any other CBSA comprising a basic locality pay area under this proposed rule. However, this single-county location is adjacent to both the Richmond, VA and Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA basic locality pay areas.
Under the criteria by which locality pay areas are defined under this proposed rule, a single-county location that is adjacent to multiple locality pay areas would be added to the locality pay area with which it has greatest degree of employment interchange provided the sum of the employment interchange rates the county has with adjacent locality pay areas would be at least 20 percent. Caroline County, VA, is adjacent to the Richmond, VA, and Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay areas; the sum of its employment interchange rates is greater than 20 percent; and it has a higher rate of employment interchange with the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA basic locality pay area than with the Richmond, VA, basic locality pay area (53.24 percent with Washington-Baltimore and 40.04 percent with Richmond).
This proposal would amend 5 CFR 531.603(b) to establish the following locations as new locality pay areas.
Fresno County, CA; Kings County, CA; Madera County, CA; Mariposa County, CA; and Tulare County, CA.
Churchill County, NV; Lyon County, NV; Storey County, NV; and Washoe County, NV.
Genesee County, NY; Livingston County, NY; Monroe County, NY; Ontario County, NY; Orleans County, NY; Seneca County, NY; Wayne County, NY; and Yates County, NY.
Benewah County, ID; Kootenai County, ID; Shoshone County, ID; Ferry County, WA; Lincoln County, WA; Pend Oreille County, WA; Spokane County, WA; Stevens County, WA.
This proposal would amend 5 CFR 531.603(b) to add the following locations to existing locality pay areas:
Greene County, NY; and Hamilton County, NY.
Mora County, NM.
Cherokee County, AL; Cleburne County, AL; Lee County, AL; Randolph County, AL; Russell County, AL; Banks County, GA; Chattahoochee County, GA; Elbert County, GA; Floyd County, GA; Franklin County, GA; Gilmer County, GA; Greene County, GA; Habersham County, GA; Harris County, GA; Lumpkin County, GA; Marion County, GA; Muscogee County, GA; Putnam County, GA; Rabun County, GA; Stephens County, GA; Stewart County, GA; Talbot County, GA; Taliaferro County, GA; and White County, GA.
Blanco County, TX; Burnet County, TX; Lee County, TX; and Milam County, TX.
Clay County, AL; Etowah County, AL; Greene County, AL; Hale County, AL; Pickens County, AL; Tuscaloosa County, AL; and Winston County, AL.
Windham County, CT (redesignated from Hartford-West Hartford CT-MA locality pay area); Dukes County, MA; Nantucket County, MA; Carroll County, NH; Cheshire County, NH; Grafton County, NH; Sullivan County, NH; Orange County, VT; and Windsor County, VT.
Allegany County, NY; and Wyoming County, NY.
Addison County, VT; Lamoille County, VT; and Washington County, VT.
Alexander County, NC; Anson County, NC; Burke County, NC; Caldwell County, NC; Catawba County, NC; and Chesterfield County, SC.
Boone County, IL; Iroquois County, IL; Ogle County, IL; Stephenson County, IL; Winnebago County, IL; and Starke County, IN.
Ripley County, IN; Switzerland County, IN; Carroll County, KY; Fleming County, KY; Lewis County, KY; Owen County, KY; Robertson County, KY; Adams County, OH; and Highland County, OH.
Ashland County, OH; Columbiana County, OH; Crawford County, OH; Holmes County, OH; Mahoning County, OH; Richland County, OH; Trumbull County, OH; Wayne County, OH; and Mercer County, PA.
Coshocton County, OH; Hardin County, OH; Morgan County, OH; Noble County, OH; Pike County, OH; and Vinton County, OH.
Duval County, TX; Live Oak County, TX; and Refugio County, TX.
Carter County, OK; Love County, OK; Hill County, TX; Jack County, TX; Montague County, TX; Rains County, TX; and Van Zandt County, TX.
Lee County, IL; Whiteside County, IL; Cedar County, IA; Jackson County, IA; and Louisa County, IA.
Allen County, OH; Auglaize County, OH; Mercer County, OH; and Van Wert County, OH.
Lincoln County, CO.
Adair County, IA; Clarke County, IA; Greene County, IA; Hamilton County, IA; Lucas County, IA; Mahaska County, IA; Marion County, IA; Monroe County, IA; and Poweshiek County, IA.
Clinton County, MI; Eaton County, MI; Huron County, MI; Ingham County, MI; Jackson County, MI; Sanilac County, MI; Shiawassee County, MI; and Tuscola County, MI.
Juniata County, PA.
Colorado County, TX; Grimes County, TX; Jackson County, TX; and Madison County, TX.
Colbert County, AL; Lauderdale County, AL; and Lincoln County, TN.
Benton County, IN; Blackford County, IN; Carroll County, IN; Clinton County, IN; Fayette County, IN; Fountain County, IN; Lawrence County, IN; Monroe County, IN; Owen County, IN; Randolph County, IN; Rush County, IN; Tippecanoe County, IN; Tipton County, IN; Warren County, IN; and Wayne County, IN.
Anderson County, KS; Carroll County, MO; Daviess County, MO; Gentry County, MO; Henry County, MO; and Holt County, MO.
Jim Hogg County, TX; and La Salle County, TX.
Fond du Lac County, WI; and Sheboygan County, WI.
Blue Earth County, MN; Brown County, MN; Dodge County, MN; Fillmore County, MN; Kanabec County, MN; Meeker County, MN; Morrison County, MN; Mower County, MN; Nicollet County, MN; Olmsted County, MN; Pine County, MN; Steele County, MN; Wabasha County, MN; Waseca County, MN; and Polk County, WI.
Sullivan County, NY; and Wayne County, PA.
Fremont County, IA; Shelby County, IA; and Burt County, NE.
Sussex County, DE; Somerset County, MD; Wicomico County, MD; Worcester County, MD; and Schuylkill County, PA.
Gila County, AZ.
Belmont County, OH; Cambria County, PA; Greene County, PA; Somerset County, PA; Marshall County, WV; and Ohio County, WV.
Wahkiakum County, WA.
Caswell County, NC; Edgecombe County, NC; Halifax County, NC; Moore County, NC; Nash County, NC; Northampton County, NC; Warren County, NC; and Wilson County, NC.
Brunswick County, VA; Essex County, VA; Greensville County, VA; Nottoway County, VA; and Emporia City, VA.
Alpine County, CA; Amador County, CA; Butte County, CA; Colusa County, CA; and Sierra County, CA.
Gillespie County, TX; Gonzales County, TX; Karnes County, TX; Kerr County, TX; and McMullen County, TX.
Calaveras County, CA; Merced County, CA; and Stanislaus County, CA.
Grays Harbor County, WA; Pacific County, WA; and San Juan County, WA.
Fayette County, IL; Greene County, IL; Montgomery County, IL; Randolph County, IL; Washington County, IL; Crawford County, MO; Gasconade County, MO; Iron County, MO; Madison County, MO; Montgomery County, MO; Pike County, MO; Ste. Genevieve County, MO; and Washington County, MO.
Chowan County, NC; Hertford County, NC; Middlesex County, VA; Southampton County, VA; Surry County, VA; and Franklin City, VA.
Allegany County, MD; Caroline County, MD; Fulton County, PA; Caroline County, VA (redesignated from Richmond, VA locality pay area); Madison County, VA; Orange County, VA; Shenandoah County, VA; Westmoreland County, VA; Hardy County, WV; and Mineral County, WV.
This rule would establish four new locality pay areas based on updated pay disparity data and would add many locations to existing locality pay areas as a result of using the revised criteria the Council has recommended for areas of application. Wage rates for employees who receive GS locality pay would increase in these areas relative to the
OPM expects that this rule would most directly impact approximately 32,900 GS employees. Modifying existing locality pay areas would affect approximately 16,700 GS employees, and establishing the four new locality pay areas proposed would affect approximately 16,200 GS employees. As discussed above, other Federal employees who receive GS locality pay would be indirectly impacted at the time of an annual pay adjustment. Due to the scope of this proposed rule, OPM does not anticipate that it would substantially impact local economies or have a large ripple effect in local labor markets. However, OPM is requesting comment on this rule regarding the impacts discussed above related to future annual pay adjustments.
OPM is highly interested in any impacts of locality pay adjustments due to rulemaking and will continue to study the implications of such impacts as needed.
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866.
OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as this rule only applies to Federal agencies and employees.
OPM has examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 531 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; sec. 4 of Public Law 103-89, 107 Stat. 981; and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305, 5333, 5334(a) and (b), and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5336; Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5941(a); E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682; and E.O. 13106, 63 FR 68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224.
(b) The following are locality pay areas for the purposes of this subpart:
(1) Alaska—consisting of the State of Alaska;
(2) Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA—consisting of the Albany-Schenectady, NY CSA and also including Berkshire County, MA, Greene County, NY, and Hamilton County, NY;
(3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM—consisting of the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA and also including Cibola County, NM, and McKinley County, NM;
(4) Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County—Sandy Springs, GA-AL—consisting of the Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County—Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA and also including Cherokee County, AL, Cleburne County, AL, Lee County, AL, Randolph County, AL, Russell County, AL, Banks County, GA, Chattahoochee County, GA, Elbert County, GA, Franklin County, GA, Gilmer County, GA, Gordon County, GA, Greene County, GA, Harris County, GA, Lumpkin County, GA, Marion County, GA, Muscogee County, GA, Putnam County, GA, Rabun County, GA, Stewart County, GA, Talbot County, GA, Taliaferro County, GA, and White County, GA;
(5) Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX—consisting of the Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX MSA and also including Blanco County, TX, Burnet County, TX, Lee County, TX, and Milam County, TX;
(6) Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL—consisting of the Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also including Calhoun County, AL, Clay County, AL, Coosa County, AL, Etowah County, AL, Greene County, AL, Hale County, AL, Pickens County, AL, Tallapoosa County, AL, Tuscaloosa County, AL, and Winston County, AL;
(7) Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME-VT—consisting of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA and also including Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland
(8) Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Olean, NY—consisting of the Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Olean, NY CSA and also including Allegany County, NY, and Wyoming County, NY;
(9) Burlington-South Burlington-Barre, VT—consisting of the Burlington-South Burlington-Barre, VT CSA and also including Addison County, VT, and Lamoille County, VT;
(10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC—consisting of the Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC CSA and also including Alexander County, NC, Burke County, NC, Caldwell County, NC, Catawba County, NC, and Chesterfield County, SC;
(11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI—consisting of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA and also including Boone County, IL, Iroquois County, IL, Ogle County, IL, Stephenson County, IL, Winnebago County, IL, and Starke County, IN;
(12) Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA and also including Ripley County, IN, Switzerland County, IN, Carroll County, KY, Fleming County, KY, Lewis County, KY, Owen County, KY, Robertson County, KY, Adams County, OH, and Highland County, OH;
(13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH-PA—consisting of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH CSA and also including Ashland County, OH, Columbiana County, OH, Crawford County, OH, Harrison County, OH, Holmes County, OH, Mahoning County, OH, Richland County, OH, Trumbull County, OH, and Mercer County, PA;
(14) Colorado Springs, CO—consisting of the Colorado Springs, CO MSA and also including Fremont County, CO, and Pueblo County, CO;
(15) Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH—consisting of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH CSA and also including Coshocton County, OH, Hardin County, OH, Morgan County, OH, Noble County, OH, Pike County, OH, and Vinton County, OH;
(16) Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX—consisting of the Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice, TX CSA and also including Brooks County, TX, Live Oak County, TX, and Refugio County, TX;
(17) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK—consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA and also including Carter County, OK, Love County, OK, Delta County, TX, Hill County, TX, Hopkins County, TX, Jack County, TX, Montague County, TX, Rains County, TX, Somervell County, TX, and Van Zandt County, TX;
(18) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL—consisting of the Davenport-Moline, IA-IL CSA and also including Carroll County, IL, Lee County, IL, Whiteside County, IL, Cedar County, IA, Jackson County, IA, and Louisa County, IA;
(19) Dayton-Springfield-Kettering, OH—consisting of the Dayton-Springfield-Kettering, OH CSA and also including Allen County, OH, Auglaize County, OH, Mercer County, OH, Preble County, OH, and Van Wert County, OH;
(20) Denver-Aurora, CO—consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and also including Larimer County, CO, and Lincoln County, CO;
(21) Des Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA—consisting of the Des Moines-Ames-West Des Moines, IA CSA and also including Adair County, IA, Clarke County, IA, Greene County, IA, Hamilton County, IA, Lucas County, IA, Monroe County, IA, and Poweshiek County, IA;
(22) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI—consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA and also including Clinton County, MI, Eaton County, MI, Huron County, MI, Ingham County, MI, Jackson County, MI, Sanilac County, MI, Shiawassee County, MI, and Tuscola County, MI;
(23) Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA—consisting of the Fresno-Madera-Hanford, CA CSA and also including Mariposa County, CA, and Tulare County, CA;
(24) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA—consisting of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams County, PA, and York County, PA, and also including Juniata County, PA, and Lancaster County, PA;
(25) Hartford-East Hartford, CT-MA—consisting of the Hartford-East Hartford, CT CSA and also including Franklin County, MA, Hampden County, MA, and Hampshire County, MA;
(26) Hawaii—consisting of the State of Hawaii;
(27) Houston-The Woodlands, TX—consisting of the Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA and also including Colorado County, TX, Grimes County, TX, Jackson County, TX, Madison County, TX, San Jacinto County, TX, and Trinity County, TX;
(28) Huntsville-Decatur, AL-TN—consisting of the Huntsville-Decatur, AL CSA and also including Colbert County, AL, DeKalb County, AL, Lauderdale County, AL, Marshall County, AL, and Lincoln County, TN;
(29) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN—consisting of the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Benton County, IN, Blackford County, IN, Carroll County, IN, Clinton County, IN, Fayette County, IN, Fountain County, IN, Grant County, IN, Lawrence County, IN, Monroe County, IN, Owen County, IN, Randolph County, IN, Rush County, IN, Tippecanoe County, IN, Tipton County, IN, Warren County, IN, and Wayne County, IN;
(30) Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS—consisting of the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA and also including Anderson County, KS, Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, Wabaunsee County, KS, Carroll County, MO, Daviess County, MO, Gentry County, MO, Henry County, MO, and Holt County, MO;
(31) Laredo, TX—consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA and also including Jim Hogg County, TX, and La Salle County, TX;
(32) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ—consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson, NV CSA and also including Mohave County, AZ;
(33) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA—consisting of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA and also including Imperial County, CA, Kern County, CA, San Luis Obispo County, CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
(34) Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL—consisting of the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale, FL CSA and also including Okeechobee County, FL;
(35) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI—consisting of the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA and also including Fond du Lac County, WI, and Sheboygan County, WI;
(36) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI—consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI CSA and also including Blue Earth County, MN, Brown County, MN, Dodge County, MN, Fillmore County, MN, Kanabec County, MN, Meeker County, MN, Morrison County, MN, Mower County, MN, Nicollet County, MN, Olmsted County, MN, Pine County, MN, Sibley County, MN, Wabasha County, MN, Waseca County, MN, and Polk County, WI;
(37) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA—consisting of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also including Warren County, NJ, Sullivan County, NY, Carbon County, PA, Lehigh County, PA, Northampton County, PA, Wayne County, PA, and all of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(38) Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA—consisting of the Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA and also including Fremont County, IA,
(39) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL—consisting of the Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(40) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, and also including Sussex County, DE, Somerset County, MD, Wicomico County, MD, Worcester County, MD, and Schuylkill County, PA;
(41) Phoenix-Mesa, AZ—consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa, AZ CSA;
(42) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV—consisting of the Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA and also including Belmont County, OH, Cambria County, PA, Greene County, PA, Somerset County, PA, Marshall County, WV, and Ohio County, WV;
(43) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA—consisting of the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA and also including Wahkiakum County, WA;
(44) Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC—consisting of the Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC CSA and also including Caswell County, NC, Cumberland County, NC, Edgecombe County, NC, Halifax County, NC, Harnett County, NC, Hoke County, NC, Lee County, NC, Moore County, NC, Nash County, NC, Northampton County, NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland County, NC, Warren County, NC, Wayne County, NC, and Wilson County, NC;
(45) Reno-Fernley, NV—consisting of the Reno-Carson City-Fernley, NV CSA, except for Carson City, NV, and Douglas County, NV, and also including Churchill County, NV;
(46) Richmond, VA—consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also including Brunswick County, VA, Cumberland County, VA, Essex County, VA, Greensville County, VA, Louisa County, VA, Nottoway County, VA, and Emporia City, VA;
(47) Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY—consisting of the Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY CSA;
(48) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV—consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville, CA CSA and also including Alpine County, CA, Amador County, CA, Butte County, CA, Colusa County, CA, Sierra County, CA, Carson City, NV, and Douglas County, NV;
(49) San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX—consisting of the San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA and also including Gillespie County, TX, Gonzales County, TX, Karnes County, TX, Kerr County, TX, and McMullen County, TX;
(50) San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA—consisting of the San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA MSA;
(51) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA—consisting of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Calaveras County, CA, and Monterey County, CA;
(52) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and also including Grays Harbor County, WA, Pacific County, WA, San Juan County, WA, and Whatcom County, WA;
(53) Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID—consisting of the Spokane-Spokane Valley-Coeur d'Alene, WA-ID CSA and also including Benewah County, ID, Shoshone County, ID, Ferry County, WA, Lincoln County, WA, and Pend Oreille County, WA;
(54) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA and also including Fayette County, IL, Greene County, IL, Montgomery County, IL, Randolph County, IL, Washington County, IL, Crawford County, MO, Gasconade County, MO, Iron County, MO, Madison County, MO, Montgomery County, MO, Pike County, MO, Ste. Genevieve County, MO, and Washington County, MO;
(55) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also including Cochise County, AZ;
(56) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC—consisting of the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC CSA and also including Chowan County, NC, Hertford County, NC, Tyrrell County, NC, Middlesex County, VA, and Surry County, VA;
(57) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA—consisting of the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also including Allegany County, MD, Caroline County, MD, Dorchester County, MD, Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, Fulton County, PA, York County, PA, Caroline County, VA, King George County, VA, Orange County, VA, Shenandoah County, VA, Westmoreland County, VA, Hardy County, WV, and Mineral County, WV; and
(58) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those portions of the United States and its territories and possessions as listed in 5 CFR 591.205 not located within another locality pay area.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guide; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1404, “Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive Content of Application Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date for comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33846) is extended. Comments should be submitted no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments,
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-3229; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0073 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
As noted in the
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would have applied to all Viking Air Limited (Viking) (type certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC-3 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by changing the required action specified in the proposed airworthiness directive (AD). Additionally, the FAA is publishing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on the revised proposed action and whether the revised proposed action would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products and the agency is requesting comments on this SNPRM.
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 14, 2023.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250) 656-0673; email:
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 228-3731; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The MCAI requires doing all inspections specified in Part 2 of Viking DHC-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017 (Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR), doing applicable corrective actions using Part 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, and reporting to Viking Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion as specified in Part 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.
Corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a corrosion prevention and control program to identify and correct corrosion and cracking. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to require completing all of the initial tasks identified in the program and reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA revised the proposed actions specified in the NPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a corrosion prevention and control program approved by the FAA. In this SNPRM the FAA proposes to require incorporating into the existing maintenance records for your airplane the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.
In addition, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on whether the proposed AD would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters were Taquan Air, Talkeetna Air Taxi, and an individual. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Taquan Air and an individual commenter stated that they were not aware of any corrosion-related accidents involving the affected airplanes. The individual commenter noted that ADs are supposed to be driven by accidents and incidents that result in injury and/or death and stated that if this is correct, then there is no justification for the NPRMs that would be applicable to the Beavers [Model DHC-2 airplanes] and Otters [Model DHC-3 airplanes]. The individual commenter asked how aviation would be made better by issuing the NPRMs that would be applicable to two dependable and reliable airplanes. The FAA infers that these commenters are requesting that the FAA withdraw the NPRM.
The FAA does not agree with the commenters' requests to withdraw the NPRM. According to 14 CFR 39.5, the issuance of an AD is based on the finding that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. This section of the Federal Aviation Regulations does not specify that an accident is necessary for the FAA to determine that there is an unsafe condition. In this case, the FAA independently reviewed the MCAI and related service information and determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD is needed to address that unsafe condition. Further, it is within
Taquan Air and an individual commenter expressed concern regarding the financial impact of the NPRM on small entities. The individual commenter asked if the FAA considered the financial burden on operators. This commenter explained that there are not enough mechanics and asked how a company with Beavers and Otters could stay in business trying to create and get two corrosion programs up at the same time and maintain the flying aircraft. Taquan Air stated that the NPRM was targeting a specific type of operator and would financially burden just Beaver and Otter operators.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns and infers that the commenters are requesting that the NPRM be withdrawn due to the perceived adverse economic impact on small entities. Under 14 CFR 39.1, issuance of an AD is based on the finding that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop in aircraft of a particular type design. An aging airplane requires more attention during maintenance procedures and, at times, more frequent inspections of structural components to detect damage due to environmental deterioration, accidental damage, and fatigue. The unsafe condition addressed in this SNPRM includes undetected corrosion, which could lead to structural failure and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Inspections and repair are therefore necessary to detect and correct such corrosion before it leads to structural failure. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Regarding the question of the NPRM having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the FAA has developed an IRFA for this proposed action and a reason for issuing this SNPRM is to solicit comments on the IRFA.
Talkeetna Air Taxi requested that the NPRM be revised to supersede certain ADs for Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes that include inspections requirements. The commenter explained that Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, is a broad and detailed document, and stated that if operators chose to use Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, to establish a corrosion control program, then the repetitive inspections required by those ADs would be redundant and those AD should be superseded.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has reviewed all potentially related ADs against the proposed requirements in this SNPRM and determined that no ADs need to be superseded or rescinded. If an operator identifies an inspection that it considers to be redundant, the operator can request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) by using the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this SNPRM.
Taquan Air and an individual commenter requested that the unsafe condition be addressed by adding Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes to the Aging Aircraft rule (14 CFR 135.422), rather than through the NPRM. The commenters noted that doing so would evenly spread the burden, rather than having different corrosion control policies for different airplane models. Taquan Air noted that airplanes operating in Alaska have been exempted from the Aging Aircraft rule. Both commenters suggested that 14 CFR part 43 appendix D (which specifies the scope and detail of items to be included in annual and 100-hour inspections) be rewritten to address corrosion. The individual commenter added that 14 CFR 135.422 should apply to all part 135 operators, with a similar 14 CFR regulation applicable to part 91 operators.
The FAA disagrees with adding this to the Aging Aircraft rule. The proposed action would address a known unsafe condition on the structure of Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes. If the FAA finds that other aircraft have similar issues to the affected airplanes, the FAA would look at appropriate rulemaking for those aircraft also. For the Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes, the FAA has determined that annual and 100-hour inspections are currently not adequate to address the unsafe condition identified in this SNPRM. The FAA has a responsibility to address an unsafe condition that is not addressed by general maintenance by issuing an AD. Therefore, the proposed actions of this SNPRM are the appropriate way of addressing the unsafe condition. Adding inspections for corrosion to 14 CFR part 43 appendix D to address the unsafe condition identified in this SNPRM is not appropriate because that corrective action would not be limited to the products affected by this unsafe condition. 14 CFR part 43 appendix D contains general inspections that are not specific to individual products. Therefore, issuing an AD is the appropriate vehicle for addressing this identified unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Taquan Air asked if the operating environment, including the use of floats, wheels, or skis, would be considered when the FAA reviewed the corrosion prevention program. The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting a change to the NPRM based on different airplane operational usage.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request to change the NPRM based on different airplane operational usage. There is no current requirement to track the hours spent flying in different conditions or types of water. Additionally, operators may not know the entire flight history of an airplane. Without this detailed knowledge of each airplane, it would be impossible for the FAA to develop a special set of inspections based on airplane usage conditions. However, operators may submit a proposal for revised requirements by requesting an AMOC using the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this SNPRM. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Taquan Air and an individual commenter asked for clarity regarding the process of creating and getting approval for a corrosion prevention and control program. Taquan Air asked how long it would take to get a program approved. Taquan Air also asked if the Viking corrosion control program is an approved method for establishing a corrosion prevention and control
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the creation of a corrosion prevention and control program and has simplified the proposed actions. This SNPRM would require incorporating the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, into the existing maintenance records. In Note 1 to paragraph (g) of the NPRM, the use of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, was identified as an acceptable means of compliance but was not required to be used. That note has been removed from this SNPRM and the subsequent note that appeared as Note 2 to paragraph (g) of the NPRM has been has re-identified as Note 1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD.
The FAA also acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding delays and timeliness of approving a prevention and control program, however, since this proposed AD would require operators to incorporate the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, into the existing maintenance records, those concerns should be mitigated.
An individual commenter requested that “properly trained mechanics” be allowed to perform the non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections (tasks).
The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. Operators can use an in-house properly trained individual with qualifications equivalent to Level II or Level III to do the NDT inspections. FAA Advisory Circular 65-31B,
The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, which specifies procedures for inspecting areas of the airplane that are particularly susceptible to corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation. Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, also specifies repetitive inspection intervals, defines the different levels of corrosion, and provides corrective action if corrosion is found.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
The FAA also reviewed Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin V3/0010, Revision NC, dated March 19, 2020. The service bulletin provides a list of new inspection tasks that have been added to the DHC-3 maintenance program in Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information described above. The FAA is issuing this SNPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. At the request of some commenters, the FAA is reopening the comment period of this SNPRM to allow the public the chance to comment on the economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This SNPRM also contains the changes discussed previously.
This proposed AD would require within 90 days after the effective date of the final rule, incorporating into the existing maintenance records the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, and doing each initial task within 6 months after the effective date of the proposed AD or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, whichever occurs later. This proposed AD would also require reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by issuing ADs that require revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness to incorporate new or revised inspections. This proposed AD, however, would require establishing and incorporating new inspections into the existing maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2) for your airplane. The FAA does not intend this as a substantive change. Requiring incorporation of the new ALS requirements into the existing maintenance records, rather than requiring individual repetitive inspections and replacements, allows operators to record AD compliance once after updating the existing maintenance records, rather than recording compliance after every inspection and part replacement.
In light of the heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate transportation in Alaska, the FAA has fully considered the effects of this SNPRM (including costs to be borne by affected operators) from the earliest possible stages of AD development. As previously stated, 14 CFR part 39 requires operators to correct an unsafe condition identified on an airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy condition. The FAA has determined that the need to correct corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation in aging aircraft, which could lead to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane, outweighs any impact on aviation in Alaska.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 68 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor rate of $85 per work-hour to revise the existing maintenance records.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,780 or $85 per airplane.
The FAA estimates it would take about 1 work-hour to report any Level 2 corrosion found during the proposed initial or subsequent inspections or any Level 3 corrosion found during the proposed initial or subsequent
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. Based on the comments received following publication of the NPRM, the FAA has completed an IRFA and requests comments from affected small entities. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the number of small entities affected, assess the economic impact of the proposed regulation on them, and consider less burdensome alternatives and still meet the agency's statutory objectives.
The RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and small organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and small governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than fifty thousand (50,000).
The FAA is publishing this IRFA to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA invites interested parties to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact that would result from the proposal. The FAA will consider comments when making a determination or when completing a Final Regulatory Flexibility Assessment.
Under Sections 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis for a proposed rule must contain the following:
(1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
The FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to adopt a new AD for Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes. This proposed AD results from MCAI originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The NPRM proposed to require establishing a corrosion prevention and control program to identify and correct corrosion and cracking. The NPRM also proposed to require completing all of the initial tasks identified in the program and reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
The objective of the actions proposed in this SNPRM is to meet the same safety intent as those actions proposed in the NPRM. The FAA issued the NPRM under the authority described in Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum safety standards required in the interest of safety. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more
The FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines “small business” to have the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by issuing regulations.
SBA (2022) has established size standards for various types of economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
The FAA identified 68 Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes that would be affected by the proposed AD. These 68 airplanes are registered to 32 private firms and 5 individuals. The individuals are excluded from this analysis as they presumably are not small entities under the RFA.
The 32 private firms own 63 airplanes. Of these firms, the FAA was able to obtain the data necessary to classify 21 of them.
The FAA estimates that the AD costs per airplane would be 1 work hour plus $85 in reporting costs for the initial inspection, for a total of $170. The estimated cost of this proposed AD, per small entity, is shown in the “Cost” column of Table 1 and cost impact is measured by cost as a percentage of revenues. As the table shows, the mean cost impact is 0.1% of annual revenues,
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The FAA did not find any significant regulatory alternatives to the proposed AD that would still accomplish the safety objectives of this proposed AD.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the RFA.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 14, 2023.
None.
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2700, Flight Control System.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation in aging aircraft. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address corrosion and cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, incorporate into the existing maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your airplane, the actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking DHC-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017 (Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR). Do each initial task within 6 months after the effective date of this AD or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, whichever occurs later. Where Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, specifies contacting Viking regarding a component's alloy and heat treat condition, this AD requires contacting the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, Transport Canada, or Viking's Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) After the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are approved as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) For inspections done after the effective date of this AD, report to Viking any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, at the times specified in and in accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.
(2) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD report to Viking any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, in accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved specifically for this AD by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA.
(1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2018-04, dated January 19, 2018, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found in the AD docket at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 228-3731; email:
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Viking DHC-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250) 656-0673; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the comment period for the color additive petition for which we published a notice of filing in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the color additive petition for which a notice of filing was published in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Paulette M. Gaynor, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1192.
In the
We have received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the color additive petition. We have considered these requests and are extending the comment period for the color additive petition until September 1, 2023. We believe that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying a response to this petition.
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is proposing to amend
Submit comments on or before July 28, 2023.
Mail or deliver written comments to the Director, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to
You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.
Steven Jarboe at (202) 268-7690, Devin Qualls at (202) 268-3287, or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
In section 204.2.1.8,
The Postal Service relies on the accuracy of the IMpb, and the data contained within the barcodes, including Service Type Codes (STCs).
The Postal Service is proposing to add a third validation under “Barcode Quality” that will require that an IMpb must include a valid, unique 3-digit STC that accurately represents the mail class, product, and service combination on the physical label affixed to the package. Additionally, the IMpb on the package must also correspond with electronic package level details and Extra Services Code(s) contained within the Shipping Services File (SSF). Any variance in the data presented in the electronic submission of a parcel or a variance with the physical aspect of the label affixed to a parcel presented for mailing will be subject to the IMpb noncompliance fee if a mailer falls below the 98 percent threshold.
The Postal Service is proposing to implement this change effective October 1, 2023.
We believe the proposed revision will ensure the IMpb quality enabling the Postal Service to provide customers with a more efficient mailing experience.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comment on the following proposed revisions to
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401-404, 414, 416, 3001-3018, 3201-3220, 3401-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631-3633, 3641, 3681-3685, and 5001.
• The IMpb must include a valid, unique 3-digit Service Type Code that accurately represents the mail class, product, and service combination on the physical label affixed to the package and the electronic package level details and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On May 15, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule titled, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Amendments.” The EPA is extending the comment period on this proposed rule that currently closes on June 29, 2023, by 8 days. The comment period will now remain open until July 7, 2023, to allow additional time for stakeholders to review and comment on the proposal.
The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions about this action, contact Mr. David Putney, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2016; and email address:
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
The
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of establishment the Tribal Advisory Committee and solicit nominations for membership.
In accordance with section 12303 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the United States Department of Agriculture announces its intent to establish of the Tribal Advisory Committee by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Tribal Advisory Committee will advise the Secretary on matters related to Tribal and Indian affairs. The Tribal Advisory Committee will be governed by the provisions of FACA as applicable. Duration of the Tribal Advisory Committee is required by legislation to be permanent, and the Charter will be renewed biannually by the Secretary of Agriculture. This notice also solicits for nominations for membership on the Tribal Advisory Committee.
Nominations must be submitted via email or postmarked by August 14, 2023.
Please submit nominations and resumes for recognition and appointment by the Secretary of Agriculture and Chair and Ranking members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; House Committee on Agriculture; and Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry through Josiah Griffin, Designated Federal Officer, to 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 501-A, Washington, DC, and 20250.
Inquiries may be sent to, Josiah Griffin, Designated Federal Officer, USDA, Office of Tribal Relations, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 501-A, Washington, DC, and 20250 or at (202) 205-2249 and
Public Law 115-334 of section 12303 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to create the Tribal Advisory Committee to advise the Agency on matters related to Tribal and Indian affairs.
The duties of the Committee as directed by the authorizing legislation include identifying issues of relevance to Indian tribes relating to programs of the Department; communicating to the Secretary the issues identified; submitting to the Secretary recommendations for and solutions to these issues, other issues raised at the Tribal, regional, or national level, and issues relating to any Tribal consultation carried out by the Department; discussing issues and proposals for changes to regulations, policies, and procedures of the Department that impact Indian tribes; identifying priorities and providing advice on appropriate strategies for Tribal consultation; ensuring that pertinent issues of the Department are brought to the attention of an Indian tribe in a timely manner so that timely feedback can be obtained; and identifying and proposing solutions to any interdepartmental barriers between the Department and other Federal agencies.
The Committee is required to meet no less than twice per year, anticipated to be mid-Calendar year and at the end of each Calendar year. Additionally, USDA anticipates this Committee to convene over virtual/teleconference in those quarters where an in-person meeting is not otherwise scheduled. The Committee members shall be compensated at the level IV executive schedule daily rate for each day of participation in an officially scheduled, quarterly meeting of the full Committee in addition to each travel to and from these in-person Committee meetings. Once convened in full, the Committee will vote to elect a chairperson for the Committee to facilitate Committee member discussion and activity and a vice-chairperson to fill this role in lieu of the chairperson when unavailable.
Of the eleven (11) members to be appointed to the Tribal Advisory Council, three (3) of which shall be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture; one (1) by the chairperson of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate; one (1) by the ranking member of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate; one (1) by the chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate; one (1) by the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate; two (2) by the chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and two (2) by the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives. Each appointment shall be made for no longer than three (3) years except for the first appointment of the Agriculture Secretary, which shall be for a period of two (2) years. All subsequent terms shall be for a period of three (3) years.
To the extent feasible, the Secretary will coordinate the aforementioned Congressional committee leadership to ensure that the members of the Tribal Advisory Committee represent a diverse set of expertise on issues relating to geographic regions, Indian tribes, and the agricultural industry, including in subsistence and fisheries.
Pursuant to the statute, nominations may be submitted by an Indian tribe as defined by 25 U.S.C. 5304, a Tribal organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 5304, or a national or regional organization with expertise in issues relating to the above duties of the Committee. Individuals who wish to be considered for membership on Tribal Advisory Committee must submit a nomination with information, including a background disclosure form (Form AD-755). All interested nominees, whether they wish to be appointed by the Secretary or one of the Senate or Congressional Committees, shall use this same
Nominations should be typed and include the following:
1. If nominating an individual, a brief summary, no more than two pages, explaining the nominee's qualifications to serve on the Tribal Advisory Committee and addressing the membership composition and criteria described above.
2. A resume providing the nominee's background, experience, and educational qualifications.
3. A completed Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information form (AD-755) signed by the nominee.
4. Letters of endorsement are optional.
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken in account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women and person with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation into the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands of fresh leaves and stems of Garland Chrysanthemum (
Imports may be authorized beginning June 28, 2023.
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352; email:
Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS proposes to authorize the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on findings of a pest risk analysis, we determine that the measures can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the
In accordance with that process, we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on December 20, 2021. We received 26 comments by that date. Of these, 25 supported the importation of chrysanthemum leaves and stems for consumption without further comment or request for modification.
One commenter noted that Garland Chrysanthemum is already authorized for importation from Mexico as a cut flower if it is accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate that has been issued by the national plant protection organization of Mexico and attests to the Garland Chrysanthemum's freedom from
The regulations governing the importation of cut flowers into the United States are found in 7 CFR 319.74-1 through 319.74-4 (subpart P). These regulations do not pertain to imported plant parts intended for consumption. If the commodity is intended for consumption, it is governed by the regulations in subpart L that are referenced above in this notice. Separate authorization based on the intended use of the plant part is warranted because the intended use of
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of fresh leaves and stems of Garland Chrysanthemum (
These conditions will be listed in the USDA, APHIS Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements (ACIR) database (
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E- Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS or the Agency), a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces the availability of approximately $450 million, under section 22003 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, in competitive grants to eligible entities for activities designed to expand the sales and use of renewable fuels under the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP). Cost-share grants of up to 75 percent of total eligible project costs, but not more than $5 million, will be made available to assist transportation fueling facilities and fuel distribution facilities with converting to higher blend friendly status for ethanol (
The application windows for enrollment in the HBIIP will take place quarterly for five quarters, starting July 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024, with the option for a sixth application window if funding has not been exhausted. The application window will close at 4:30 p.m. Eastern time on the last day of each quarter.
This funding opportunity will also be posted to
Jeff Carpenter at
• Assisting rural communities recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure;
• Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to Rural Development (RD) programs and benefits from RD funded projects; and
• Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities.
The purpose of the HBIIP is to significantly increase the sales and use of higher blends of ethanol and biodiesel. HBIIP is intended to encourage a more comprehensive approach to marketing higher blends by sharing the costs related to building and/or retrofitting biofuel-related infrastructure.
Under Section 22003 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, RBCS is making
This notice is issued pursuant to section 22003 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-169).
Applicants should also submit to RBCS the compatibility verification of equipment to be funded. EPA regulations found in 40 CFR 280.32 require demonstrating compatibility of systems storing fuel containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel, so RBCS collecting this information in advance is not an additional burden for applicants. A compatibility verification will ensure that grant funds are used for purposes that expand the environmentally safe availability of fuel containing higher blends of ethanol and biodiesel. More information can be found in this June 2019 compliance advisory from the EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks:
(b)
(c)
(1) 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Civil Rights compliance includes, but is not limited to the following:
(i) Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
(ii) The applicant must comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.
(2) 2 CFR part 417 Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement), or any successor regulations.
(3) 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), or any successor regulations.
(4) Subpart B of 2 CFR part 421, which adopts the Governmentwide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
(5) Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance go to
(6) Federal Obligation Certification on Delinquent Debt.
Under the HBIIP, funds will be awarded to assist transportation fueling facilities and fuel distribution facilities in converting their current facilities through upgrade or installation of new equipment required to ensure all equipment is fully compatible with higher blends of ethanol (
Storing and dispensing E15, E85, or other high blends of ethanol for transportation fueling facilities, such as automotive, freight, rail, and marine, with equipment that is not compatible with higher blends of ethanol fuel can result in leaks and releases that contaminate land and groundwater. Older and even some newer existing underground storage tank (UST) systems (which include but are not limited to tanks, pumps, ancillary equipment, lines, gaskets, and sealants) are not fully compatible with E15 or higher and require modification before storing these fuels. Biodiesel blends above B20 have similar requirements; some infrastructure changes may even be necessary when storing blends greater than B5. This program will expand the number of facilities fully compatible with higher blends of ethanol and biodiesel.
Grants for up to 75 percent of total eligible project costs, but not more than $5 million, are made available to: (1) owners, including affiliated entities, of 10 or fewer transportation fueling facilities, including local fueling stations/locations; convenience stores; and hypermarket fueling stations; and (2) owners of home heating oil distribution facilities who have at least 80 percent of their average annual throughput volume coming from home heating oil, including affiliated entities. An affiliate is an entity controlling or having the power to control another entity, or a third party or parties that control or have the power to control both entities. Grants for up to 50 percent of total eligible project costs, but not more than $5 million, are made available to owners of: (1) more than 10 transportation fueling facilities, including, but not limited to, local fueling stations/locations; convenience stores; and hypermarket fueling stations; (2) fleet facilities including rail and marine; and (3) fuel distribution facilities, including fuel terminal operations; midstream operations; and/or distribution facilities including home heating oil distribution facilities with more than 80 percent of their average annual throughput volume coming from home heating oil.
Owners of transportation fueling facilities and owners of fuel distribution facilities may apply for this program. Eligible facilities must be located in the United States and its territories and include fueling stations, convenience stores, hypermarket retailer fueling stations, fleet facilities (including automotive, freight, rail and marine), and similar entities with equivalent capital investments, as well as fuel/biodiesel terminal operations, midstream operations, and heating oil distribution facilities or equivalent entities.
Applicants must include all proposed activity under a single application. Applicants must own or have the legal right to control all site locations included in their application. Applicants may apply for and will only receive funding associated with implementation activities for one or more transportation fueling facilities or one or more fuel distribution facilities. Applications including combinations of transportation fueling facility implementation activities and fuel distribution facility implementation activities are ineligible. Application requirements and other important information is available on the HBIIP web page
Matching Funds. The applicant is responsible for securing the remainder of the total eligible project costs not covered by grant funds. Matching funds can be comprised of eligible in-kind contributions from third parties and/or cash, however, in-kind contributions provided by the applicant cannot be used to meet the matching fund requirement. Written commitments for matching funds (
Funds made available under HBIIP may only be used for eligible equipment, infrastructure, and related expenses to support the sales and use of higher biofuel blends, fuel containing ethanol greater than 10 percent by volume and/or fuel containing biodiesel blends greater than 5 percent by volume.
Applicants may enter into arrangements with private entities such as, but not limited to, commercial vendors of fuels, agricultural commodity promotional organizations, Tribes, and other entities interested in the renewable fuels in order to secure such non-Federal funds or in-kind contributions.
There are several existing or prior and ongoing State-led programs and private sector efforts to help provide funding for higher blend dispensers, related equipment, and infrastructure. These programs may be included as part of any matching contribution requirement. However, the application must show how the HBIIP grant will add to the infrastructure that fosters higher blend biofuel sales and use. HBIIP funds are intended to provide additional incentives.
Up to 10 percent of an applicant's Matching Funds requirement (up to 5 percent of total project costs) may be used to pay consumer education and/or marketing and/or signage related expenses. HBIIP grant funds awarded to transportation fueling stations are intended to assist with converting those facilities to ensure full compatibility with higher blend fuel through upgrade or installation of fuel dispensers, related equipment, and infrastructure. Although the contributions of consumer education and/or marketing and/or signage toward a fuel station's fuel sales are well recognized, a very tall sign to display fuel prices does not in any way assist a facility with higher blends compatibility. Therefore, the Agency determined that while HBIIP grant funds may not be used for consumer education and/or marketing and/or signage, matching funds may be used to pay for consumer education and/or marketing and/or signage related expenses.
The goal of HBIIP is to significantly increase the market availability of higher blends biofuels. To be eligible for this program, a project's sole purpose must be for the installation, and/or retrofitting, and/or otherwise upgrading of fuel dispensers/pumps, related/attached equipment, fuel storage tank system components, and other infrastructure required at a location to ensure the environmentally safe availability of fuel containing ethanol blends greater than 10 percent or fuel containing biodiesel blends greater than 5 percent.
(A) An eligible project must conform to all applicable Federal, State, Tribal and local regulatory requirements pertaining to:
1. Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and
2. Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) Program, 40 CFR part 112;
3. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives, 40 CFR part 80;
4. Occupational Safety and Health Standards Subpart H—Hazardous Materials Section 106—Flammable Liquids, 29 CFR 1910.106;
5. Safety and Health Regulations for Construction Subpart F—Fire Protection and Prevention Section 152—Flammable Liquids, 29 CFR 1926.152; and
6. Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification, and Posting, 16 CFR part 306.
HBIIP funds may be used for equipment required at a location to ensure the environmentally safe availability of fuel containing ethanol blends greater than 10 percent or fuel containing biodiesel blends greater than 5 percent.
Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) UST regulations require fuel to be stored in systems that are compatible with the type of fuel being stored. The environmentally safe growth in availability of fuels containing higher blends of ethanol or biodiesel depends on these fuels being stored and dispensed from UST systems that are compatible with E15. Storing and dispensing E15 at gas stations with equipment that is not compatible with higher blends of ethanol fuel can result in leaks and releases that contaminate land and groundwater. Section 280.32 of 40 CFR part 280 states that UST owners and operators must use an UST system made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substance stored in the UST system.
Additionally, owners or operators who store regulated substances that contain more than 20 percent biodiesel or more than 10 percent ethanol, such as 15 percent ethanol or E15, must notify their implementing agency 30 days before storing the fuel. Owners and operators must also keep records demonstrating that their UST system is compatible with the substance stored.
Demonstrating compatibility of an UST system means identifying what equipment is installed as part of your UST system. You must show that a component is approved by either the manufacturer of the component or by a nationally recognized independent testing laboratory, such as Underwriters Laboratory, for use with the fuel to be stored. See details about these requirements in regulations issued by EPA at 40 CFR 280.32.
(B) Please note that compatibility extends beyond the fuel tank. Owners and operators must demonstrate compatibility for the components below to store substances containing more than 10 percent ethanol or more than 20 percent biodiesel. These components include:
1. Tanks;
2. Piping carrying product from the tank;
3. Piping containment sumps entered by the piping;
4. Pumping equipment, including the submersible pump or suction pump, depending on the type of system;
5. Release detection equipment, including automatic tank gauging probes, sump sensors, and line leak detectors;
6. Spill equipment, such as spill buckets, for the tank; and
7. Overfill equipment, including ball float valves or flapper valves.
The federal UST regulation from EPA does not require owners and operators to demonstrate the compatibility of dispensers or associated aboveground equipment. However, compatibility requirements for these components may exist in other local regulations, such as, but not limited to, the fire code. Owners and operators should check for these requirements with their implementing agency. HBIIP grant funds may be used to upgrade or replace fuel dispensers/pumps, UST system components, or other required infrastructure, necessary to make their facility fully compatible with higher blends of ethanol or biodiesel. Fuel dispensers/pumps, UST system components, and other required infrastructure and components must meet the minimum requirements of EPA's UST regulations and other Federal, State, and local regulations or codes; and, must be approved by either the manufacturer of the component or by a nationally recognized independent testing laboratory, such as Underwriters Laboratory, for use at a minimum for blends containing 25 percent ethanol or 100 percent biodiesel.
Eligible Project Costs are only those costs incurred after the date that a complete application is submitted and that are directly related to the use and purposes of the HBIIP. The applicant is cautioned against taking any actions or incurring any obligations prior to the Agency completing the environmental review that would either limit the range of alternatives to be considered or that would have an adverse effect on the environment, such as the initiation of construction. If the applicant takes any such actions or incurs any such obligations, it could result in project ineligibility. Eligible project costs may include:
(i) Retrofitting of existing, or purchase and installation of new, fuel dispensers (gas and/or diesel pumps) and attached equipment, fuel storage tank system components, and other infrastructure required at a location to ensure the environmentally safe availability of fuel containing ethanol blends greater than 10 percent or fuel containing biodiesel blends greater than 5 percent;
(ii) Construction, replacement, and improvements;
(iii) Fees for construction permits and licenses;
(iv) Professional service fees for qualified consultants, contractors, installers, and other third-party services; and
(v) HBIIP grant funds may not be used to pay for expenses related to higher blend consumer education and/or higher blend marketing and/or higher blend signage. However, up to 10 percent of an applicant's matching funds requirement (up to 5 percent of total project costs) may be used to pay for higher blend consumer education and/or higher blend marketing and/or higher blend signage related expenses. The Awardee is encouraged to display USDA standard infrastructure investment signage, available for download from the Agency, during construction of the Project. Expenditures for such signage shall be a permitted eligible cost of the Project.
Ineligible project costs for HBIIP projects include, but are not limited to:
1. Renewable diesel projects.
2. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) projects.
3. Used equipment and vehicles.
4. Construction or equipment costs that would be incurred regardless of the installation of higher blend fuel infrastructure shall not be included as eligible project costs. For example, a fuel storage tank for a fueling facility constructed during the grant period that would have been otherwise installed should not be included in an application. USDA believes all new tanks and piping available in the market only come in models compatible with higher blends of ethanol and biodiesel, so grant funds would not expand the market for higher blends by funding such tank or equipment installation. However, other required equipment such as fuel dispensers/pumps and other UST system components that are still available in traditional and higher blend compatible models, the latter at a
5. Business operations that derive more than 10 percent of annual gross revenue (including any lease income from space or machines) from gambling activity, excluding State or Tribal authorized lottery proceeds, as approved by the Agency, conducted for the purpose of raising funds for the approved project.
6. Business operations deriving income from activities of a sexual nature or illegal activities.
7. Purchase of real property or land.
8. Lease payments.
9. Any project that creates a Conflict of Interest or an appearance of a Conflict of Interest which, for purposes of this program includes, but is not limited to:
(a) Distribution or payment of a grant, guaranteed loan funds, and matching funds or award of project construction contracts to an individual owner, partner, or stockholder, or to a beneficiary or immediate family of the applicant when the recipient will retain any portion of ownership in the applicant's or borrower's project. Grant and matching funds may not be used to support costs for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest.
(b) Assistance to employees, relatives, and associates. The Agency will process any requests for assistance under this subpart in accordance with 7 CFR part 1900, subpart D.
(c) Member/delegate clause. No member of or delegate to Congress shall receive any share or part of a grant awarded pursuant to HBIIP or any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to bar, as a contractor under the grant, a publicly held corporation whose ownership might include a member of Congress.
10. Funding of political or lobbying activities.
11. To pay off any Federal direct or guaranteed loan or any other form of Federal debt. Any incurred expense, equipment purchase, or paid service prior to the date a complete application is submitted.
12. Any expense associated with applying for this program, including environmental reviews and requirements related to it.
13. Any expense associated with reporting results and/or outcomes during the disbursement, performance, and servicing portions of this program.
14. Transportation infrastructure not on location where eligible biofuels are blended, stored, supplied, or distributed.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Departmental Regulations and federal laws that contain other compliance requirements are referenced in paragraphs F, H, and I of this notice. Applicants who are found to be/have been in violation of applicable Federal Law/statutes will be deemed ineligible.
Applicants seeking to participate in this program must submit applications in accordance with this notice.
Applications must be submitted electronically using the HBIIP secure-server portal. Instructions and resources for completing the online application are available on the HBIIP web page under the “To Apply” tab,
Applicants must submit complete applications by the date identified in the
1. For Higher Blend Implementation Activities related to transportation fueling stations/facilities, the HBIIP Online Application is comprised of the following elements:
(a) SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance;
(b) HBIIP Project Worksheet with Priority Scoring Criteria: Transportation Fueling Stations/Facilities;
(c) SF 424C, Budget Information—Construction Programs;
(d) HBIIP Project Technical Report;
(e) Signed Certification of Matching Funds;
(f) Confirmation of Environmental Information to HBIIP inbox (
(g) SF 424D, Assurances—Construction Programs signed by applicant entity (if signing by Power of Attorney, a legal, fully executed copy of the Power of Attorney must be provided when submitting the application for it to be considered complete).
2. For Higher Blend Implementation Activities related to fuel distribution facilities, an HBIIP Online Application is comprised of the following elements:
(a) SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance;
(b) HBIIP Project Worksheet with Priority Scoring Criteria: Fuel Distribution Facilities;
(c) SF 424C, Budget Information—Construction Programs;
(d) HBIIP Project Technical Report;
(e) Signed Certification of Matching Funds;
(f) Confirmation of Environmental Information to HBIIP inbox (
(g) SF 424D Assurances—Construction Programs signed by the applicant entity (if signing by Power of Attorney, a legal, fully executed copy of the Power of Attorney must be provided when submitting the application for it to be considered complete).
3. Instructions and resources for completing the online application are available on the HBIIP web page under the “To Apply” tab,
(a) At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25 (
(b) Each applicant must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
(c) Each applicant must ensure it completes the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(d) Each applicant must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110 (
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
The deadline date for applications to be received to be considered for funding is specified in the
After applying electronically through the HBIIP website, the applicant will receive an automated acknowledgement, specifying submission date and time, from the HBIIP online application system. In order to be considered for funds under this notice, applications must be deemed complete and must be received by the secure portal located on the HBIIP web page at
Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many states have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. Instructions for completing this required element and a list of States that maintain a SPOC are available in the HBIIP online application. Applications from Federally recognized Indian tribes are not subject to this requirement.
The following funding restrictions apply to applications submitted under this notice.
1. Only one HBIIP application may be submitted by an HBIIP applicant per quarterly application window. An application may request HBIIP assistance in a single application for more than one location that is owned and/or legally controlled by the applicant entity. An HBIIP applicant/application may receive one and only one award in each quarterly application window not to exceed a total of $15 million of funding made available under Section 22003 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
2. If it is determined that an applicant is affiliated with another entity that has also applied, then the maximum grant award and total Inflation Reduction Act funding assistance applies to all affiliated entities as if they applied as one applicant. An affiliate is an entity controlling or having the power to control another entity, or a third party or parties that control or have the power to control both entities.
3. Previous acceptance of an HBIIP Letter of Conditions cannot be withdrawn and resubmitted under this notice, unless there is a change in scope of work approved by RBCS (HBIIP) staff.
4. Fuel Storage Tanks and Systems.
(a)
(b)
5. HBIIP grant funds may not be used to pay for expenses related to higher blend consumer education and/or higher blend marketing and/or higher blend signage. However, up to 10 percent of an applicant's matching funds requirement (up to 5 percent of total project costs) may be used to pay for higher blend consumer education and/or higher blend marketing and/or higher blend signage related expenses. The Awardee is encouraged to display USDA standard infrastructure investment signage, available for download from the Agency, during construction of the Project. Expenditures for such signage shall be a permitted eligible cost of the Project.
6. No HBIIP grant funds may be used to pay for any incurred expense prior to the submission of a complete application.
(a)
(b)
A priority score will be added to complete applications deemed eligible to compete. Given the purpose of the HBIIP, higher priority will be given to projects deemed to significantly increase the sales and use of higher blends of ethanol and biodiesel on a gallons per dollar of requested funds basis. Priority scoring and ranking of applications will be a function of the following criteria:
(a) Annual sales volume for the past 3 calendar years or projected sales for fueling stations constructed during the grant period, for all fuels including E10 and/or B5;
(b) The incremental increase in higher blend fuel volume attributed to:
(i) The proposed change in percentage of refueling positions offering E15 and/or B20 or higher blends (the greater percentage of higher blend fuel refueling positions, the greater the higher blend fuel volume attribution);
(ii) The proposed new ratio number of fueling positions offering E15 and/or B20 relative to the number of fueling positions offering E10 and/or B5 (the greater the ratio of higher blend fuel refueling positions relative to E10 and/or B5, the greater the higher blend fuel volume attribution);
(iii) The proposed ratio number of fueling positions offering E85 relative to
(iv) The proposed change in the number of fueling stations with at least one E15 fueling position (the greater the number of fueling stations, the greater the higher blend fuel volume attribution);
(v) Whether the applicant is an owner of 10 fueling stations or fewer (if yes, a Targeted Assistance Goal, higher blend fuel volume attribution);
(vi) The proposed number of fueling stations located along an interstate highway corridor;
(vii) The proposed number of fueling stations located as the sole station (within a 1-mile radius) in an area;
(viii) The proposed number of fueling stations located in areas under consideration for Geographic Diversity:
1. The New England States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island; and/or
2. The Western States of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming; and/or
3. The U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands;
(c) A “Matching Funds” investment/commitment to higher blends signage and/or marketing is proposed (non-zero investment yields greater higher blend fuel volume attribution);
(d) The total amount of requested funds.
The HBIIP online application, “Project Worksheet with Priority Scoring Criteria for Transportation Fueling Stations/Facilities,” is interactive and designed to indicate an applicant's priority score based on—HBIIP activities (
Transportation fueling stations/facilities applications should take special care to provide evidentiary documentation in support of their proposed activities in the HBIIP Project Technical Report. In the event of suspect, overstated, or otherwise unsubstantiated claims, the Agency reserves the right to adjust an application's priority score accordingly.
(a) Annual throughput volume for past 3 years, for all fuels;
(b) The incremental increase in throughput of higher blend fuel, as substantiated by:
(i) Validated demand—demand projections/forecasts;
(ii) Market drivers—the underlying economic and technological forces that compel your customers to purchase your products and services;
(iii) Documented incentives—known national, regional, state, and local policy and market incentives available to the business;
(iv) Project sustainability—environmental, social, and economic reasons the business will thrive beyond HBIIP;
(v) Investments on consumer education and marketing; and
(vi) Partnerships—significant long-term supplier and/or customer arrangements and/or agreements;
(c) The total amount of requested funds.
Fuel distribution facility applications must provide evidentiary documentation in support of their throughput projections in the HBIIP Project Technical Report. In the event of suspect, overstated, or otherwise unsubstantiated claims, the Agency reserves the right to adjust an application's priority score accordingly. Letters of support do not meet this requirement and are not needed.
All complete applications will be competed/ranked in accordance with Section E.1., as specified above. Applicants may work to complete the online application until the deadline specified in the
Due to the competitive nature of this program, applications receiving the same priority score will be competed/ranked based on submittal date. The submittal date is the date the RBCS receives a complete application. A complete application contains all information requested by RBCS and is sufficient to allow the determination of eligibility, score, rank, and compete the application for funding, subject to funds availability. Incomplete applications will not be competed and will not receive funding.
The RBCS retains the discretion to award a 10 percent scoring priority to applications that support HBIIP policy goals and that specifically promote economic development to improve life in rural areas that are most in need:
(a)
(i) First time applicants.
(ii) Applicants who have not previously been selected for HBIIP funding.
(iii) Applicants who have not previously had HBIIP funding obligated.
(b)
(c)
Approximately 80 percent of fuel sales in the U.S. is sold by convenience store owners. Moreover, about 54 percent of the stores selling fuel in the U.S. are “single store owners.” A significant majority of higher blends fuel is currently sold/dispensed by large retail convenience store chains located in the Midwest and along the East Coast of the U.S., due in part because these are the types of businesses and locations with the highest densities of higher blends fueling infrastructure. The Agency established this Targeted Assistance Goal to distribute a portion of program funds among a greater number of business owners and, across a broader geographic region, to increase participation. There is an underlying expectation that owners/participants located in underserved areas today will be positioned as higher blend fuel market leaders tomorrow.
(d)
To be considered for funds, complete applications must be received by the deadline specified in the
1.
(a) The applicant will be notified and given the option to lower the grant request and accept the remaining funds. If the applicant agrees to lower the grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project.
(b) If two or more applications have the same priority score and the same submittal date, both applicants will be notified and given the option to lower the grant requests and accept the remaining funds. If an applicant agrees to lower its grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project.
2.
(a) the maximum Federal grant share percentage of total eligible project costs, or a lesser amount when deemed appropriate;
(b) the maximum award amount of $5 million; or
(c) available funds.
3.
HBIIP grants will be administered in accordance with Departmental Regulations, and as otherwise specified in this notice. Applicants selected for funding will receive a signed notice of Federal award containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award. Applicants not selected for funding will be notified in writing and informed of any review and appeal rights. Awards to successfully appealed applications will be limited to available funding.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 200, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). Each applicant will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless the applicant is exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). More information on these requirements can be found at
The following additional items will need to be executed by grantees selected for this program in order to receive HBIIP funds:
1. Letter of Conditions, awarding an HBIIP grant to the applicant and specifying certain conditions and requirements of the grant award
2. Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions;”
3. Grant Agreement—RD 4280-2 Rural Business-Cooperative Service Financial Assistance Agreement;
4. Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds;” and
5. Form SF 271, “Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs.”
After grant approval and through grant completion, grantees will be required to periodically provide the following, as indicated:
(a) A SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 calendar days after end of the semiannual period). For the purposes of this grant, semiannual periods end on March 31st and September 30th. The project performance reports shall include the elements prescribed in the Grant Agreement which, for fueling stations, will include point of sale reporting for up to 5 years post project completion and, for fuel distribution facilities, will include reporting of throughput volumes of all fuels including higher blend fuels.
(b) A final project and financial status report, as required per 2 CFR 200.344, “Closeout”, within 120 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
(c) Provide project outcome/performance reports and final deliverables. Reported data will be used for program and policy evaluation. The proprietary nature and confidentiality of information collected from program participants is specified in 7 U.S.C. 2276.
For further information contact: Jeff Carpenter at
Funding to Non-Federal Entities. Awardees that are Non-Federal Entities, defined pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1 as any State, local government, Indian tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization, shall be governed by the requirements of Section 70914 of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) within the IIJA. USDA's guidance is available online at
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027,
(1)
(2)
(3)
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Virginia Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 20, requesting subzone status for the facility of LL Flooring Services, LLC, located in Sandston, Virginia. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on June 23, 2023.
The proposed subzone (79.95 acres) is located at 6115 Engineered Wood Way, Sandston, Virginia. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 20.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this expedited sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels as indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable June 28, 2023.
Harrison Tanchuck, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7421.
On March 1, 2023, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the
Commerce received a substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
On April 20, 2023, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.
The product covered by the
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The MAFMC will hold a public joint meeting (webinar) of its River Herring and Shad (RH/S) Committee and Advisory Panel to review recent RH/S developments and develop recommendations for the MAFMC, including for the Atlantic mackerel fishery's RH/S cap.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 13, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Webinar connection information will be posted to the calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The RH/S Committee and Advisory Panel will review updated information on RH/S per the RH/S Update format last reviewed in October 2021. Recent publications regarding RH/S bycatch will also be reviewed. The Committee and Advisory Panel members will make recommendations including for the Atlantic mackerel fishery's RH/S cap, which is set by the MAFMC when catch limits for Atlantic mackerel are adopted. Public comments will also be taken.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 84 Data Scoping Webinar for U.S Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper and Stoplight Parrotfish.
The SEDAR 87 assessment process of U.S. Caribbean yellowtail snapper and stoplight parrotfish will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 84 Data scoping webinar will be held July 17, 2023, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) a Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Data scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will discuss what data may be available for use in the assessment.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 28, 2023.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Amy Sloan or Carrie Hubard, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301-427-8401),
The NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division is proposing an extension and revision of the currently approved information collection OMB Control Number 0648-0084. The information collection request (IRC) is under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA, FSA, and ESA prohibit “take” (
Persons or institutions seeking to take, import, or export protected species must apply for a permit or authorization and demonstrate the statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The regulations pertaining to permits and associated reporting under the MMPA and FSA are at 50 CFR part 216; the regulations for permit requirements under the ESA are at 50 CFR part 222. The required information in this collection is used by NMFS to make the determinations required by the MMPA, FSA, ESA, and their implementing regulations prior to issuing a permit or authorization; to establish appropriate conditions; to evaluate the impacts on protected species; and, to ensure compliance with the Acts.
Information required includes the name, affiliation, contact information and qualifications of the applicant and others listed on the application; the purpose of the request; the species, age, sex, and number of animals; the proposed methods and mitigation to minimize impacts to the species; a description of the impacts to the species and environment; and the requested time frame of the permit. Permit and authorization holders must submit reports on the activities they carry out.
For this renewal, the only change we propose is to provide additional guidance to improve take number estimates and reporting. The intent is to improve the reasonableness of our applicant's take estimates and the accuracy of their subsequent reporting. In reviewing permit reports, we have found that the takes requested are, in many cases, substantially greater than that used. This new guidance will be included in all relevant application instructions.
The MMPA requires NMFS to maintain an inventory of marine mammals in public display facilities and for those facilities to report certain information to NMFS' (via the National Inventory of Marine Mammals [NIMM]). The NIMM forms include an institutional contact form, a marine mammal data sheet (MMDS), and a transfer/transport notification form. Inventory information required by the MMPA includes the animal's name or other identification; sex; birth date; date animal enters and leaves a collection; source of the animal (
Prior to the previous PRA notice, NMFS published a
The agency takes the views of our constituents seriously and because of the substantive comments received, we will not propose those changes to NIMM at this time. Instead, the agency will seek public comment on the final policies and procedures for NIMM through a separate process in the future.
Permit applications, permit report form information, and inventory forms are available as downloadable Word or PDF versions online at
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Attentive Energy LLC (AE) to incidentally harass marine mammals during marine site characterization surveys off of New York and New Jersey in the New York Bight.
This Authorization is effective from June 20, 2023 through June 19, 2024.
Karolyn Lock, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On December 28, 2022, NMFS received a request from AE for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting marine site characterization surveys in coastal waters off of New York and New Jersey in the New York Bight, specifically within the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (Lease) Area OCS-A 0538 and associated export cable route (ECR) area. Following NMFS' review of the application, the application was deemed adequate and complete on February 22, 2023. AE's request is for take of small numbers of 15 species (16 stocks) of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither AE nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. There are no changes from the proposed IHA to the final IHA.
AE plans to conduct marine site characterization surveys, including high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys, in coastal waters off of New Jersey and New York in the New York Bight, specifically within the BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0538 and associated ECR area.
The planned marine site characterization surveys are designed to obtain data sufficient to meet BOEM guidelines for providing geophysical, geotechnical, and geohazard information for site assessment plan surveys and/or construction and operations plan development. The objective of the surveys is to support the site characterization, siting, and engineering design of offshore wind project facilities including wind turbine generators, offshore substations, and submarine cables within the Lease Area. Up to two vessels may conduct survey efforts concurrently. Underwater sound resulting from AE's marine site characterization survey activities, specifically HRG surveys, have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of Level B harassment.
The survey is planned to begin as soon as practicable and estimated to require 201 survey days across a maximum of two vessels operating concurrently within a single year. A “survey day” is defined as a 24-hour (hr) activity period in which active acoustic sound sources are used. It is expected that each vessel would cover approximately 170 kilometers (km) per day based on the applicant's expectations regarding data acquisition efficiency, and there is up to 21,745 km (13,512 miles) of track line of survey effort planned; 14,025 km in the Lease Area and 7,720 km in the ECR area. The IHA would be effective for 1 year from the date of issuance.
AE's survey activities would occur in coastal waters off of New York and New Jersey in the New York Bight, specifically within Lease Area OCS-A 0538 and the associated ECR area (Figure 1). The Survey Area (
AE's marine site characterization surveys include HRG surveys and geotechnical sampling activities within the Lease Area and the ECR area. The total HRG survey tracklines for the Survey Area is 21,745 km, with 14,025 km in the Lease Area and 7,720 km in the ECR Area. The geotechnical sampling activities, including use of vibracores and seabed core penetration tests, would occur during the same period as the HRG survey activities and would use an additional survey vessel. NMFS does not expect geotechnical sampling activities to present reasonably anticipated risk of causing incidental take of marine mammals, and these activities are not discussed further in this notice.
AE plans to conduct HRG survey operations, including multibeam depth sounding, seafloor imaging, and medium penetration sub-bottom profiling (SBP). The HRG surveys will
The only acoustic sources planned for use during AE's HRG survey activities with expected potential to cause incidental take of marine mammals are the sparker and boomer. Sparkers and boomers are medium penetration, impulsive sources used to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy. Sparkers create omnidirectional acoustic pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz, are typically towed behind the vessel, and may be operated with different numbers of electrode tips to allow tuning of the acoustic waveform for specific applications. The sparker system planned for use is the Dual Geo-Spark 2000X (400 tip/800 J). A boomer is a broadband source operating in the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz frequency range. The boomer system planned for use is the Geo-Boomer 300-500.
A detailed description of AE's planned HRG surveys is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to AE was published in the
NMFS received eleven comment letters. Two of these comment letters were from non-governmental organizations: the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) and Clean Ocean Action (COA), and one was from an elected local governmental official (Mayor of Borough of Seaside Park, New Jersey; Seaside Park). The remaining eight comments were from private citizens.
All comments from private citizens expressed general opposition to issuance of the IHA or to the underlying associated activities. We reiterate here that NMFS' proposed actions concerns only the authorization of marine mammal take incidental to the planned surveys—NMFS' authority under the MMPA does not extend to the surveys themselves or to wind energy development more generally. Many comments received request that NMFS not issue any IHAs related to wind energy development and/or expressed opposition for wind energy development generally without providing information relevant to NMFS' decision. We do not specifically address comments expressing general opposition to activities related to wind energy development or respond to comments that are out of scope of the proposed IHA (88 FR 24553), such as comments on other Federal agency processes and activities not planned under this IHA.
All substantive comments and NMFS' responses are provided below, and all comment letters are available online at
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a determination that the take incidental to a “specified activity” will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS' implementing regulations require applicants to include in their request a detailed description of
Through the response to public comments in the 1989 implementing regulations, NMFS also indicated (1) that we would consider cumulative effects that are reasonably foreseeable when preparing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, and (2) that reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would also be considered under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for ESA-listed species, as appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS has written Environmental Assessments (EA) that addressed cumulative impacts related to substantially similar activities, in similar locations,
Separately, the cumulative effects of substantially similar activities in the northwest Atlantic Ocean have been analyzed in the past under section 7 of the ESA when NMFS has engaged in formal intra-agency consultation, such as the 2013 programmatic Biological Opinion for BOEM Lease and Site Assessment Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas (
NMFS reiterates that there is no evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind development-related site characterization surveys could potentially cause marine mammal stranding, and there is no evidence linking recent large whale mortalities and currently ongoing surveys. The commenters offer no such evidence. NMFS will continue to gather data to help us determine the cause of death for these stranded whales. We note the Marine Mammal Commission's recent statement: “There continues to be no evidence to link these large whale strandings to offshore wind energy development, including no evidence to link them to sound emitted during wind development-related site characterization surveys, known as HRG surveys. Although HRG surveys have been occurring off New England and the mid-Atlantic coast, HRG devices have never been implicated or causatively-associated with baleen whale strandings.” (Marine Mammal Commission Newsletter, Spring 2023).
There is an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for humpback whales along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida, which includes animals stranded since 2016. Partial or full necropsy examinations were conducted on approximately half of the whales. Necropsies were not conducted on other carcasses because they were too decomposed, not brought to land, or stranded on protected lands (
As discussed herein, HRG sources may behaviorally disturb marine mammals (
The best available science indicates that Level B harassment, or disruption of behavioral patterns, may occur as a result of AE's specified activities. We also refer to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) 2021 Programmatic Consultation, which finds that these survey activities are in general not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed marine mammal species (
NMFS' ITA application and review process has numerous steps to ensure due diligence occurs for all ITA requests. On average, applications for IHAs take 5-8 months from application received to the final decisional date where an IHA is either issued or denied (50 CFR 216.104(d)). Following an application being deemed adequate and complete, the ITA application progresses through the NMFS authorization review and decisional process, which includes a public notice period of 30 days (50 CFR 216.104(b) and (c)). The public comment period allows for meaningful public engagement. The public comment period provides a mechanism for external input, including the opportunity for new scientific information relevant to the proposed activities, to be submitted for agency consideration. More information on the authorization steps and timelines can be found at
In this case, NMFS received AE's initial application on December 28, 2023 and completed several rounds of agency review and analysis before considering the application adequate and complete on February 22, 2023. NMFS drafted the
NMFS determined that AE's surveys have the potential to take marine mammals by Level B harassment and does not anticipate or authorize mortality (death), serious injury, or Level A harassment of any marine mammal species, including NARW. Further, NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, and transitory nature of AE's marine site characterization survey activities will create conditions of acute or chronic acoustic exposure leading to long-term physiological stress responses in marine mammals.
NMFS emphasizes that an IHA does not authorize the activity itself but authorizes the take of marine mammals incidental to the “specified activity” for which incidental take coverage is being sought. In this case, NMFS is responding to AE's request to incidentally take marine mammals while engaged in marine site characterization surveys and determining whether the necessary findings can be made based on AE's application. The authorization of AE's survey activities is not within NMFS' jurisdiction. NMFS refers RODA to BOEM's website:
A list of all proposed and issued IHAs for renewable energy activities, such as AE's marine site characterization surveys, including the requested, proposed, and/or authorized take is available on the agency website at:
To date, NMFS is not aware of any site characterization vessels from HRG surveys reporting a vessel strike within the United States. When considered in the context of low overall probability of any vessel strike by AE vessels, given the limited additional survey-related vessel traffic relative to existing traffic in the survey area, the comprehensive visual monitoring, and other additional mitigation measures described herein, NMFS believes these measures are sufficiently protective to avoid vessel strikes. These measures are described fully in the Mitigation section below, and include, but are not limited to: training for all vessel observers and captains, a requirement that all vessel operators comply with 10 knots (18.5 km/hour) or less speed restrictions in any SMA, DMA or Slow Zone while underway, daily monitoring of North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and United States Coast Guard (USCG) Channel 16 for situational awareness regarding NARW presence in the survey area, communication protocols if whales are observed by any AE personnel, vessel operational protocol should any marine mammal be observed, and visual monitoring. Vessel speed mitigations are also briefly discussed in NMFS' response to
The potential for impacts related to an overall increase in the amount of vessel traffic due to OSW development is separate from the aforementioned analysis of potential for vessel strike during AE's specified survey activities and is not discussed further as it is outside the scope of this specific action.
All mitigation measures stated in this notice and in the issued IHA are considered feasible. NMFS works with each ITA applicant, including AE, to ensure that project-specific mitigation measures are possible in real-world conditions. This includes shutdown zones when there is reduced visibility. As stated in the IHA condition 5(d), AE must ensure certain equipment is provided to protected species observers (PSOs), such as thermal (infrared) cameras, to allow PSOs to adequately complete their duties, including in reduced-visibility conditions. NMFS does not agree that additional wording is necessary within the IHA to further describe the requirement and implementation of shutdown zones. If NMFS determines during the effective period of the IHA that the prescribed measures are likely not or are not effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, NMFS may modify, suspend, or revoke the IHA. NMFS disagrees that the IHA's mitigation measures are insufficient.
NMFS reviews required reporting (see Monitoring and Reporting) and uses the information to evaluate the mitigation measure effectiveness. Additionally, the mitigation measures included in AE's IHA are not unique, and data from prior IHAs support the effectiveness of these mitigation measures. NMFS finds the level of reporting currently required is sufficient for managing the issued IHA and monitoring the affected stocks of marine mammals.
As noted above, any masking effects of this survey are expected to be limited and brief, if present. Given the likelihood of significantly reduced received levels beyond even short distances from the survey vessel, combined with the short duration of potential masking and the lower likelihood of extensive additional contributors to background noise offshore and within these short exposure periods, we believe that the incremental addition of the survey vessel is unlikely to result in more than minor and short-term masking effects, likely occurring to some small number of the same individuals captured in the estimate of behavioral harassment.
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions instead of reprinting the information here. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the species or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All MMPA managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication (draft 2022 SAR) and are available online at
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by AE's activities, including information regarding population trends, threats, and local occurrence, was provided in the
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat can be found in the
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which informs both NMFS' “small numbers,” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to sound produced by the sparker or boomer. Based on the characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic sources planned for use, Level A harassment is neither anticipated (even absent mitigation), nor authorized. As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below, we describe how the take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by temporary threshold shift (TTS) as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur. AE's planned activities include the use of impulsive (
The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
AE's planned activity includes the use of impulsive (
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
NMFS has developed a user-friendly methodology for estimating the extent of the Level B harassment isopleths associated with relevant HRG survey equipment (NMFS, 2020). This methodology incorporates frequency and directionality (when relevant) to refine estimated ensonified zones. For acoustic sources that operate with different beamwidths, the maximum beamwidth was used, and the lowest frequency of the source was used when calculating the frequency-dependent absorption coefficient (Table 1). AE used 180-degree beamwidth in the calculation for the planned sparker as is appropriate for an omnidirectional source.
NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to represent the best available information on source levels associated with HRG survey equipment and, therefore, recommends that source levels provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in the method described above to estimate isopleth distances to harassment thresholds. In cases where the source level for a specific type of HRG equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS recommends either the source levels provided by the manufacturer be used, or, in instances where source levels provided by the manufacturer are unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. Table 1 in the
AE plans to use the Dual Geo-Spark 2000X (400 tip/800 J). For all source configurations, the maximum power expected to be discharged from the sparker source is 800 J. However, Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) did not measure the Dual Geo-Spark or a source with an energy of 800 J. A similar alternative system, the Applied Acoustics Dura-spark with a 400 tip, was measured by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) with an input voltage of 500-2,000 J, and these measurements were used as a proxy for the Dual Geo-Spark. Table 1 in the
AE additionally plans to use the Geo-Boomer 300-500. Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) did not measure the Geo-Boomer 300-500. A similar alternative system, Applied Acoustics S-Boom, was measured by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) and the 500 J values were used as a proxy for the Geo-Boomer 300-500. Using the measured source level of 202 dB RMS of the proxy, results of modeling indicated that the boomer would produce an estimated distance of 51 m to the Level B harassment isopleth.
Results of modeling using the methodology described above indicated that, of the HRG survey equipment planned for use by the applicant that has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals, the Dual Geo-Spark 2000X would produce the largest distance to the Level B harassment isopleth (141 m). More detail is provided on the acoustic sources and methodology in the proposed IHA published in the
In this section, we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information, which will inform the take calculations.
Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts
For the exposure analysis, density data from Roberts and Halpin (2022) were mapped using a geographic information system (GIS). For the survey area, the monthly densities of each species as reported by Roberts and Halpin (2022) were averaged by season; thus, a density was calculated for each species for spring, summer, fall, and winter. Density seasonal averages were calculated for both the Lease Area and the ECR Area for each species to assess the greatest average seasonal densities for each species. To be conservative, since the exact timing for the survey during the year is uncertain, the greatest average seasonal density calculated for each species was carried forward in the exposure analysis, with exceptions noted later in this discussion. Estimated greatest average seasonal densities (animals/km
There are two stocks of bottlenose dolphins that may be impacted by the surveys (Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal Stock (coastal stock) and the Western North Atlantic Offshore Stock (offshore stock)). However, Roberts and Halpin (2022) do not differentiate by stock. The Coastal Stock is assumed to generally occur in waters less than 20 m and the Offshore Stock in waters deeper than 20 m (65-ft) isobath.
The Lease Area is in waters deeper than 20 m and only the Offshore Stock would occur and could be potentially taken by survey effort in that area. For the ECR survey area, both stocks could occur in the area, so AE calculated separate mean seasonal densities for the portion to be surveyed that is less than 20 m in depth and for the portion that is greater than 20 m in depth to use for estimating take of the Coastal and Offshore Stocks of bottlenose dolphins, respectively. The total tracklines in waters deeper than 20 m, between the ECR and the lease area, are 20,305 km. The total tracklines in waters less than 20 m depth, only found in portions of the ECR, are 1,440 km. Therefore, different trackline totals were used to calculate take of the Coastal and Offshore Stocks of bottlenose dolphins (20,305 km trackline of Offshore Stock and 1,440 km trackline of the Coastal Stock). All other species analyzed used the total 21,745 km of trackline for calculations.
Furthermore, the Roberts and Halpin (2022) density model does not differentiate between the different pinniped species. For seals, given their size and behavior when in the water, seasonality, and feeding preferences, there is limited information available on species-specific distribution. Density
Lastly, the Roberts and Halpin (2022) density model does not differentiate between the pilot whale species. While the exact latitudinal ranges of the two species are uncertain, only long-finned pilot whales are expected to occur in this project area due to their more northerly distribution and tolerance of shallower, colder shelf waters (Hayes
Here, we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and is authorized.
In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in harassment, radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. The maximum distance (
AE proposes to conduct the survey, using either the boomer or sparker, for a total of 21,745 km of trackline, of which 14,025 km are in the Lease area and 7,720 km in the ECR area. Of the ECR survey trackline, 1,440 km are in waters less than 20 m depth. AE is requesting take based on the worst-case-scenario between the equipment planned, which is the use of only the Dual Geo-Spark 2000X—based on the largest estimated distance to the harassment criterion. Based on the maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment threshold of 141-m (sparker) and the total survey length, the total ensonified area is 6,133 km
Where total survey length is equal to the total distance of the survey track lines within the lease area; and r is equal to the maximum radial distance from a given sound source to the Level B harassment threshold.
This is a conservative estimate as it assumes the HRG source that results in the greatest isopleth distance to the Level B harassment threshold would be operated at all times during the entire survey, which may not ultimately occur and assumes the worst case scenario is the scenario chosen for the surveys. The number of marine mammals expected to be incidentally taken during the total survey is then calculated by estimating the number of each species predicted to occur within the ensonified area (animals/km
Where:
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations.
The following mitigation measures must be implemented during AE's planned marine site characterization surveys. Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, AE would also be required to adhere to relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic consultation (specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast (
AE must employ independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must (1) be employed by a third-party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an approved PSO training course appropriate for geophysical surveys. Visual monitoring must be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs. PSO resumes must be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities.
During survey operations (
Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360° visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and shall conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs shall establish and monitor applicable shutdown zones (see below). These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the sparker or boomer source (rather than being based around the vessel itself).
Four shutdown zones are defined, depending on the species and context. An extended shutdown zone encompassing the area at and below the sea surface out to a radius of 500 m from the sparker or boomer source (0-500 m) is defined for NARW. For all other marine mammals, the shutdown zone encompasses a standard distance of 100 m (0-100 m) during the use of the sparker. For ESA-listed marine mammals during the use of the boomer, the shutdown zone is 100 m (0-100 m). For all non-ESA-listed marine mammals, the shutdown zone during the use of the boomer is 50 m (0-50 m). Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any vessel associated with the survey shall be relayed to the PSO team.
Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 1 hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period.
A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the sparker and boomer sources when technically feasible. Operators should ramp up sparker and boomer to half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power. A 30-minute pre-start clearance observation period of the shutdown zones must occur prior to the start of ramp-up. The intent of the pre-start clearance observation period (30 minutes) is to ensure no marine mammals are within the shutdown zones prior to the beginning of ramp-up. The intent of the ramp-up is to warn marine mammals of pending operations and to allow sufficient time for those animals to leave the immediate vicinity. All operators must adhere to the following pre-start clearance and ramp-up requirements:
• The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up in order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the shutdown zones for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start clearance). During this 30 minute pre-start clearance period the entire shutdown zone must be visible, except as indicated below.
• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with the source activated.
• A visual PSO conducting pre-start clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed.
• Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey operations if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable pre-start clearance zone.
• The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that mitigation commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.
The pre-start clearance requirement is waived for small delphinids and pinnipeds. Detection of a small delphinid (individual belonging to the following genera of the Family Delphinidae:
If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species (
• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal to which the pre-start clearance requirement applies is within the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone during the 30-minute pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (30 minutes for all baleen whale species and sperm whales and 15 minutes for all other species).
• PSOs must monitor the shutdown zones 30 minutes before and during ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon observation of a marine mammal within the applicable shutdown zone.
• Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate visual monitoring has occurred with no detections of marine mammals in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Sparker or boomer activation may only occur at night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances.
If the acoustic source is shut down for brief periods (
All operators must adhere to the following shutdown requirements:
• Any PSO on duty has the authority to call for shutdown of the sparker or boomer source if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable shutdown zone.
• The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the source to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.
• When the sparker or boomer source is active and a marine mammal appears within or enters the applicable shutdown zone, the source must be shut down. When shutdown is instructed by a PSO, the sparker or boomer source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute resolved only following deactivation.
• Four shutdown zones are defined, depending on the species and context. An extended shutdown zone encompassing the area at and below the sea surface out to a radius of 500 m from the sparker or boomer source (0-500 m) is defined for NARW. For all other marine mammals, the shutdown zone encompasses a standard distance of 100 m (0-100 m) during the use of the sparker. For ESA-listed marine mammals during the use of the boomer, the shutdown zone is 100 m (0-100 m). For all non-ESA-listed marine mammals, the shutdown zone during use of the boomer is 50 m (0-50 m).
The shutdown requirement is waived for small delphinids and pinnipeds. If a small delphinid (individual belonging to the following genera of the Family Delphinidae:
If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species (
Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated after the marine mammal has been observed exiting the applicable shutdown zone or following a clearance period (30 minutes for all baleen whale species and sperm whales and 15 minutes for all other species) with no further detection of the marine mammal.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone (141 m sparkers, 51 m boomers), shutdown must occur.
Crew and supply vessel personnel must have access to and use an appropriate reference guide that includes identifying information on all marine mammals that may be encountered. Vessel operators must comply with the below measures except under extraordinary circumstances when the safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt or the safety of life at sea is in question. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel(s), or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammals. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (species-specific distances are detailed below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (
All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-knot (18.52 km/h) speed restriction in specific areas designated by NMFS for the protection of NARWs from vessel strikes. These include all Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) established under 50 CFR 224.105 (when in effect), any dynamic management areas (DMA) (when in effect), and Slow Zones. See
• All vessels must reduce speed to 10 knots (18.52 km/h) or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
• All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m from NARWs, baleen whales (except humpback and minke), sperm whales, and any unidentified large whales. If a NARW, baleen whale (except humpback and minke), or an unidentified large whale is sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must steer a course away at 10 kn (18.52 km/h) or less until the 500-m separation distance has been established. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a NARW, the vessel operator must assume that it is a NARW and take appropriate action.
• All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from all humpback and mike whales.
• All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an
• When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel must take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (
Members of the PSO team will consult NMFS NARW reporting system and Whale Alert, daily and as able, for the presence of NARWs throughout survey operations, and for the establishment of DMAs and/or Slow Zones. It is AE's responsibility to maintain awareness of the establishment and location of any such areas and to abide by these requirements accordingly.
As described above, a section of the survey area partially overlaps with a portion of a NARW SMA off the port of New York/New Jersey. This SMA is active from November 1 through April 30 of each year. The survey vessel, regardless of length, would be required to adhere to vessel speed restrictions (<10 knots (18.52 km/h)) when operating within the SMA during times when the SMA is active (Table 4).
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual monitoring must be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs. AE must submit PSO resumes for NMFS review and approval prior to commencement of the survey. Resumes should include dates of training and any prior NMFS approval, as well as dates and description of last experience, and must be accompanied by information documenting successful completion of an acceptable training course.
For prospective PSOs not previously approved, or for PSOs whose approval is not current, NMFS must review and approve PSO qualifications. Resumes should include information related to relevant education, experience, and training, including dates, duration, location, and description of prior PSO experience. Resumes must be accompanied by relevant documentation of successful completion of necessary training.
NMFS may approve PSOs as conditional or unconditional. A conditionally-approved PSO may be one who is trained but has not yet attained the requisite experience. An unconditionally-approved PSO is one who has attained the necessary experience. For unconditional approval, the PSO must have a minimum of 90 days at sea performing the role during a geophysical survey, with the conclusion of the most recent relevant experience not more than 18 months previous.
At least one of the visual PSOs aboard the vessel must be unconditionally-approved. One unconditionally-approved visual PSO shall be designated as the lead for the entire PSO team. This lead should typically be the PSO with the most experience, who would coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as primary point of contact for the vessel
At least one PSO aboard each acoustic source vessel must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in the role, with no more than 18 months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One PSO with such experience must be designated as the lead for the entire PSO team and serve as the primary point of contact for the vessel operator. (Note that the responsibility of coordinating duty schedules and roles may instead be assigned to a shore-based, third-party monitoring coordinator.) To the maximum extent practicable, the lead PSO must devise the duty schedule such that experienced PSOs are on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience.
PSOs must successfully complete relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program.
PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for such a waiver shall be submitted to NMFS and must include written justification. Alternate experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; and (3) previous work experience as a PSO (PSO must be in good standing and demonstrate good performance of PSO duties).
AE must work with the selected third-party PSO provider to ensure PSOs have all equipment (including backup equipment) needed to adequately perform necessary tasks, including accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed marine mammals, and to ensure that PSOs are capable of calibrating equipment as necessary for accurate distance estimates and species identification. Such equipment, at a minimum, shall include:
• At least one thermal (infrared) imagine device suited for the marine environment;
• Reticle binoculars (
• Global Positioning Units (GPS) (at least one plus backups);
• Digital cameras with a telephoto lens that is at least 300-mm or equivalent on a full-frame single lens reflex (SLR) (at least one plus backups). The camera or lens should also have an image stabilization system;
• Equipment necessary for accurate measurement of distances to marine mammal;
• Compasses (at least one plus backups);
• Means of communication among vessel crew and PSOs; and,
• Any other tools deemed necessary to adequately and effectively perform PSO tasks.
The equipment specified above may be provided by an individual PSO, the third-party PSO provider, or the operator, but AE is responsible for ensuring PSOs have the proper equipment required to perform the duties specified in the IHA.
The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding the survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting conditions, including Shutdown Zones, during all HRG survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine mammals, including those approaching or entering the established Shutdown Zones during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the PSO(s) on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate.
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in proximity to Shutdown Zones. Reticulated binoculars must also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine mammals. During nighttime operations, appropriate night-vision devices (
During good conditions (
Data on all PSO observations would be recorded based on standard PSO collection requirements (see
AE shall submit a draft comprehensive report to NMFS on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals, must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring, and must summarize the dates and locations of survey operations and all marine mammals sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated survey activities). The draft report shall also include geo-referenced, time-stamped vessel tracklines for all time periods during which acoustic sources were operating. Tracklines should include points recording any change in acoustic source status (
PSOs must use standardized electronic data forms to record data. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of marine mammal to the acoustic source and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the acoustic source. If required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following information must be recorded:
1. Vessel names (source vessel), vessel size and type, maximum speed capability of vessel;
2. Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
3. PSO names and affiliations;
4. Date and participants of PSO briefings;
5. Visual monitoring equipment used;
6. PSO location on vessel and height of observation location above water surface;
7. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey on/off effort and times corresponding with PSO on/off effort;
8. Vessel location (decimal degrees) when survey effort begins and ends and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
9. Vessel location at 30-second intervals if obtainable from data collection software, otherwise at practical regular interval;
10. Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any change;
11. Water depth (if obtainable from data collection software);
12. Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
13. Factors that may contribute to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (
14. Survey activity information (and changes thereof), such as acoustic source power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in an array, tow depth of an acoustic source, and any other notes of significance (
15. Upon visual observation of any marine mammal, the following information must be recorded:
a. Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
b. Vessel/survey activity at time of sighting (
c. PSO who sighted the animal;
d. Time of sighting;
e. Initial detection method;
f. Sightings cue;
g. Vessel location at time of sighting (decimal degrees);
h. Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
i. Speed of the vessel(s) from which the observation was made;
j. Identification of the animal (
k. Species reliability (an indicator of confidence in identification);
l. Estimated distance to the animal and method of estimating distance;
m. Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
n. Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition,
o. Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars, or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
p. Detailed behavior observations (
q. Mitigation actions; description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
r. Equipment operating during sighting;
s. Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source; and,
t. Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
If a NARW is observed at any time by PSOs or personnel on the project vessel, during surveys or during vessel transit, AE must report the sighting information to the NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory System (866-755-6622) within 2 hours of occurrence, when practicable, or no later than 24 hours after occurrence. NARW sightings in any location may also be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16 and through the WhaleAlert app (
In the event that personnel involved in the survey activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the incident must be reported to NMFS as soon as feasible by phone (866-755-6622) and by email (
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
3. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
4. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
5. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
In the event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities, AE must report the incident to NMFS by phone (866-755-6622) and by email (
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
3. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
4. Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
5. Status of all sound sources in use;
6. Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
7. Environmental conditions (
8. Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
9. Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and/or following the strike;
10. If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other
11. Estimated fate of the animal (
12. To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 2, given that some of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are included as separate subsections below. Specifically, we provide additional discussion related to NARW and to other species currently experiencing UMEs.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result from HRG surveys, even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality is authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, non-auditory physical effects, auditory physical effects, and vessel strike are not expected to occur. NMFS expects that all potential takes would be in the form of Level B harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment zone around a survey vessel is 141-m. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding each vessel is relatively small compared to the overall distribution of the animals in the area and their use of the habitat. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the planned survey area and there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area. There is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals in the survey area.
The status of the NARW population is of heightened concern and, therefore, merits additional analysis. As noted previously, elevated NARW mortalities began in June 2017 and there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings attribute human interactions, specifically vessel strikes and entanglements, as the cause of death for the majority of NARWs. As noted previously, the survey area overlaps a migratory corridor BIA for NARWs that extends from Massachusetts to Florida and from the coast to beyond the shelf break. Due to the fact that the planned survey activities are temporary (will occur for up to 1 year) and the spatial extent of sound produced by the survey would be small relative to the spatial extent of the available migratory habitat in the BIA, NARW migration is not expected to be impacted by the survey. This important migratory area is approximately 269,488 km
Given the relatively small size of the ensonified area, it is unlikely that prey availability would be adversely affected by HRG survey operations. Required vessel strike avoidance measures will also decrease risk of ship strike during migration; no ship strike is expected to occur during AE's planned activities. Additionally, only very limited take by Level B harassment of NARWs has been requested and is being authorized by NMFS as HRG survey operations are required to maintain and implement a 500-m shutdown zone. The 500-m shutdown zone for NARWs is conservative, considering the Level B harassment isopleth for the most impactful acoustic source (
As noted previously, there are several active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of AE's survey area. Elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida since January 2016. Of the cases examined, approximately half had evidence of human interaction (ship strike or entanglement). The UME does not yet provide cause for concern
Elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities were first observed between 2018-2020 and, as part of a separate UME, again in 2022. These have occurred across Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Based on tests conducted so far, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus (2018-2020) and avian influenza (2022), although additional testing to identify other factors that may be involved in the UMEs is underway. The UMEs do not provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts to any of these stocks. For harbor seals, the population abundance is over 60,000 and annual M/SI (339) is well below PBR (1,729) (Hayes
Beginning in January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. This event does not provide cause for concern regarding population level impacts, as the likely population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales. This UME is no longer active and is pending closure.
The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes for all species listed in Table 2, including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable adverse impact. In particular, they would provide animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing them from being exposed to sound levels that have the potential to cause injury. No Level A harassment is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or authorized.
NMFS expects that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B harassment by way of brief startling reactions and/or temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring)—reactions that (at the scale and intensity anticipated here) are considered to be of low severity, with no lasting biological consequences. Since both the sources and marine mammals are mobile, animals would only be exposed briefly to a small ensonified area that might result in take. Additionally, required mitigation measures would further reduce exposure to sound that could result in more severe behavioral harassment.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or authorized;
• Foraging success is not likely to be significantly impacted as effects on species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the survey are expected to be minimal;
• The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the ensonified areas during the planned survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
• Take is anticipated to be by Level B harassment only consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance of the ensonified area;
• Survey activities will occur in such a comparatively small portion of the BIA for the NARW migration that any avoidance of the area due to survey activities would not affect migration. In addition, mitigation measures require shutdown at 500 m (almost four times the size of the Level B harassment zone of 141 m) to minimize the effects of any Level B harassment take of the species; and,
• The mitigation measures, including visual monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
NMFS authorizes incidental take by Level B harassment only of 15 marine mammal species with 16 managed stocks. The total amount of takes authorized is less than 6 percent relative to the best available population abundance for any of the 16 managed stocks (highest being for the Western North Atlantic Migratory Coastal Stock of Bottlenose dolphins) (Table 3). The take numbers authorized are considered conservative estimates for purposes of the small numbers determination as they assume all takes represent different individual animals, which is unlikely to be the case.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) has authorized take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA, including the North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale, and has determined that these activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed in NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's (GARFO) programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to AE for conducting marine site characterization surveys in coastal waters off of New York and New Jersey in the New York Bight for a period of 1 year, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The IHA can be found at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a two-day in-person meeting of its Standing, Reef Fish, Socioeconomic, and Ecosystem Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).
The meeting will be held Wednesday, July 19 through Thursday, July 20, 2023. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EDT on Wednesday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EDT on Thursday.
The meeting will take place at the Gulf Council office. Registration information will be available on the Council's website by visiting
Mr. Ryan Rindone, Lead Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The meeting will begin with Introductions and Adoption of Agenda, Approval of Verbatim Minutes and Meeting Summary from the May 2-4, 2023, meeting, and a review of the Scope of Work. The Committees will select an SSC Representative for the August 14-17, 2023, Gulf Council meeting in Austin, TX.
Following, the Committees will review SEDAR 81: Gulf of Mexico Migratory Group Spanish Mackerel Operational Assessment; presentation and background documentation and references will be provided to support SSC discussion. The Committees will receive an update on Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Cumulative Estimate Reporting and discuss Technical Guidance for National Standard 1 Reference Points and Status Determinations, with presentations, background documentation and references for SSC discussion. Public comment will be heard at the end of the day.
The Committees will review and discuss an Evaluation of Interim Analysis Process, Part 2, conclude discussions for SEDAR 81 Evaluation and Projections, and review the Gulf of Mexico Migratory Group King Mackerel Interim Analysis; including presentations and background materials for SSC discussion.
The Committees will receive public comment, if any before addressing any items under Other Business.
The meeting will also be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take-action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to LLOG Exploration Company (LLOG) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOM.
The LOA is effective from July 1, 2023, through July 5, 2025.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. GOM over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
LLOG plans to conduct one of the following vertical seismic profile (VSP) survey types: Zero Offset, Offset, Walkaway VSP, and/or Checkshots within Alaminos Canyon Block 380. The survey area has water depths of 1,000 to 2,000 m (4,000 to 6,500 feet). LLOG plans to use either a 12-element, 2,400 cubic inch (in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by LLOG in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
No VSP surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
For the planned survey, the seismic source array will be deployed in one of the following forms: Zero Offset VSP—deployed from a drilling rig at or near the borehole, with the seismic receivers (
In addition, all available acoustic exposure modeling results assume use of a 72 element, 8,000 in
The survey is planned to occur in Zone 6. The survey could take place in any season. Therefore, the take estimates for each species are based on the season that has the greater value for the species (
Additionally, for some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when considered in light of other relevant information available during the rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large area of each modeling zone. This can result in unrealistic projections regarding the likelihood of encountering particularly rare species and/or species not expected to occur outside particular habitats. Thus, although the modeling conducted for the rule is a natural starting point for estimating take, our rule acknowledged that other information could be considered (see,
NMFS' final rule described a “core habitat area” for Rice's whales (formerly known as GOM Bryde's whales)
Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the core habitat area, we expect that any such occurrence would be limited to the narrow band of suitable habitat described above (
Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM, typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts
NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992-2009 reported only 16 sightings of killer whales, with an additional 3 encounters during more recent survey effort from 2017-2018 (Waring
The rarity of encounter during seismic surveys is not likely to be the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike certain cryptic species
In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water. This survey would take place in deep waters that would overlap with depths in which killer whales typically occur. While this information is reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less likely to occur. In addition, as noted above in relation to the general take estimation methodology, the assumed proxy source (72-element, 8,000-in
In addition, in this case, use of the exposure modeling produces results that are smaller than average GOM group sizes for multiple species (Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006). NMFS' typical practice in such a situation is to increase exposure estimates to the assumed average group size for a species in order to ensure that, if the species is encountered, exposures will not exceed the authorized take number. However, other relevant considerations here lead to a determination that increasing the estimated exposures to average group sizes would likely lead to an overestimate of actual potential take. In this circumstance, the very short survey duration (maximum of 5 days) and relatively small Level B harassment isopleths produced through use of the (at most) 12-element, 2,400-in
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations for the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. See Table 1 in this notice and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5322, 86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization, which are determined as described above, are used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of LLOG's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to LLOG authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Bight, LLC (Atlantic Shores) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys offshore of New Jersey and New York in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Area OCS-A 0541 and associated export cable route (ECR) area. NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in the Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than July 28, 2023.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to
Electronic copies of the original application and supporting documents (including NMFS
Jessica Taylor, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The activities described in Atlantic Shores' request, the overall survey duration, the project location, and the acoustic sources proposed for use are identical to what was previously analyzed in support of the IHA issued by NMFS to Atlantic Shores for 2022 site characterization surveys (2022 IHA) (87 FR 38067, June 27, 2022; 87 FR 50293, August 16, 2022). All proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements remain the same. While Atlantic Shores' planned activity would qualify for renewal of the 2022 IHA, due to the availability of updated marine mammal density data (
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to allow Atlantic Shores to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible 1-year Renewal IHA that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in the Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notification prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On March 20, 2023, NMFS received a request from Atlantic Shores for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to high-resolution geophysical (HRG) marine site characterization surveys offshore of New Jersey and New York in the areas of BOEM Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the OCS Lease Area OCS A-0541 and associated ECR area. Following NMFS' review of the application, Atlantic Shores submitted a revised request on April 7, 2023. The application (the 2023 request) was deemed adequate and complete on April 20, 2023. Atlantic Shores' request is for take of 15 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. Neither Atlantic Shores nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. Take by Level A harassment (injury) is considered unlikely, even absent mitigation, based on the characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic sources planned for use.
NMFS has previously issued a similar IHA to Atlantic Shores. On April 8, 2022, NMFS received a request from Atlantic Shores for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys offshore of New Jersey and New York, in the area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Areas OCS-A 0541 and the associated ECR area. Atlantic Shores requested authorization to take small numbers of 15 species (comprising 15 stocks) of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. NMFS published a notice of the proposed IHA in the
Atlantic Shores completed a subset of the survey work under the 2022 IHA. This request is identical to the 2022 IHA.
However, Duke University's Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory released updated marine mammal density information for all species in the project area (
Atlantic Shores conducted the required marine mammal mitigation and monitoring and did not exceed authorized levels of take under previous IHAs issued for surveys offshore of New York and New Jersey (see 85 FR 21198, April 16, 2020 and 86 FR 21289, April 22, 2021). These previous monitoring results are available to the public on our website:
Atlantic Shores proposes to conduct HRG marine site characterization surveys in BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0541 and along the ECR off of New Jersey and New York. The purpose of the proposed surveys is to obtain an assessment of seabed (geophysical, geotechnical, and geohazard), ecological, and archeological conditions within the footprint of a planned offshore wind facility development area. Surveys are also conducted to support engineering design and to map unexploded ordnance. As many as three survey vessels may operate concurrently as part of the proposed surveys. During survey effort, the vessels would operate at a maximum speed of 3.5 knots (kns) (6.5 kilometers (km)). Underwater sound resulting from Atlantic Shores' proposed activities has the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of Level B harassment.
The proposed activity is estimated to require up to 360 survey days using a maximum of three vessels operating concurrently over the course of the 1-year period of effectiveness of the proposed IHA (Table 1). A “survey day” is defined as a 24-hour activity period in which active acoustic sound sources are used. This schedule is inclusive of any inclement weather downtime and crew transfers. It is expected that each vessel would cover approximately 55 km of track line per day based on Atlantic Shores' data acquisition efficiency expectations.
Atlantic Shores' proposed activities would occur in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean within Federal and state waters offshore of New York and New Jersey in BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0541 and along the associated potential ECR (Figure 1). Overall, the survey area is approximately 1,375,710 acres (5,567.3 km
A detailed description of the proposed survey activities can be found in the previous
Atlantic Shores plans to conduct geotechnical surveys, which consists of identical activities (
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities can be found in the previous documents and notices
NMFS notes that, since issuance of the 2022 IHA, a new SAR is available for the North Atlantic right whale (NARW). Estimated abundance for the species declined from 368 to 338. However, this change does not affect our analysis of impacts, as described under the 2022 IHA.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in the documents supporting the 2022 IHA (87 FR 38067, June 27, 2022; 87 FR 50293, August 16, 2022). At present, there is no new information on potential effects that would impact our analysis.
A detailed description of the methods used to estimate take anticipated to occur incidental to the project is found in the previous
The take that NMFS proposes to authorize can be found in Table 2, which presents the results of Atlantic Shores' density-based calculations for the survey area. For comparative purposes, we have provided the 2022 IHA authorized take (87 FR 50293, August 16, 2022). NMFS notes that take by Level A harassment was not requested nor does NMFS anticipate that it could occur. Therefore, NMFS has not proposed to authorize any take by Level A harassment. Mortality or serious injury is neither anticipated to occur nor proposed for authorization.
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures proposed here are identical to those included in the
Additionally, on August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing NARW vessel speed regulations to further reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered NARWs from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (87 FR 46921, August 1, 2023). Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and become effective during the effective period of this IHA (or any other MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder would be required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained within the final rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any other MMPA authorization, authorization holders would be required to comply with the requirements of the rule. Alternatively, where measures in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in the MMPA authorization would remain in place. The responsibility to comply with the applicable requirements of any vessel speed rule would become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final vessel speed rule and, when notice is published of the effective date, NMFS would also notify Atlantic Shores if the measures in the speed rule were to supersede any of the measures in the MMPA authorization such that they were no longer applicable.
• A 500-m SZ for North Atlantic right whales during use of specified acoustic sources (impulsive: Sparkers; non-impulsive: Non-parametric sub-bottom profilers); and,
• 100-m SZ for all other marine mammals (excluding North Atlantic right whales) during use of specified acoustic sources (except as specified below). The only exception for this is for pinnipeds (seals) and small delphinids (
If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the SZs during the HRG survey, the vessel operator would adhere to the shutdown procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals. During use of acoustic sources with the potential to result in marine mammal harassment (sparkers and non-parametric sub-bottom profilers;
• 500-m CZ for all ESA-listed species; and,
• 100-m CZ for all other marine mammals.
Prior to initiating HRG survey activities, Atlantic Shores should implement a 30-minute pre-start clearance period. The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up where the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up to allow the PSOs to monitor the CZs for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up. Prior to ramp-up beginning, Atlantic Shores would receive confirmation from the PSO that the CZs are clear prior to preceding. Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey operations if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable pre-start clearance zones.
During this 30-minute period, the entire CZ must be visible. The exception to this would be in situations where ramp-up must occur during periods of poor visibility (inclusive of nighttime) as long as appropriate visual monitoring has occurred with no detections of marine mammals in 30 minutes prior to the beginning of ramp-up. Acoustic source activation must only occur at night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances.
If a marine mammal is observed within the relevant CZs during the pre-start clearance period, initiation of HRG survey equipment must not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the respective clearance zone, or until an additional period has elapsed with no further sighting (
Upon implementation of shutdown, the HRG source may be reactivated after the marine mammal that triggered the shutdown has been observed exiting the applicable SZ or, following a clearance period of 15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals and 30 minutes for all other species with no further observation of the marine mammal(s) within the relevant SZ. If the HRG equipment is shut down for brief periods (
The shutdown requirement is waived for pinnipeds (seals) and certain genera of small delphinids (
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the area encompassing the Level B harassment isopleth (141 m), shutdown must occur.
Throughout all phases of the survey activities, Atlantic Shores must monitor NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the establishment of a dynamic management area (DMA). If NMFS establishes a DMA in the surrounding area, including the project area or export cable routes being surveyed, Atlantic Shores is required to abide by the 10-kn speed restriction.
In the event of a ship strike or discovery of an injured or dead marine mammal, Atlantic Shores must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report must include the information listed in the
Atlantic Shores' HRG survey activities are unchanged from those analyzed in support of the 2022 IHA. The effects of the activity, taking into consideration the proposed mitigation and related monitoring measures, remain unchanged from those evaluated in support of the 2022 IHA, regardless of the minor increases in estimated take for two marine mammal species (humpback whale and minke whale). NMFS expects that all potential takes would be short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. Even considering the increased estimated take for some species, the impacts of these lower severity exposures are not expected to accrue to a degree that the fitness of any individuals would be impacted and, therefore, no impacts on the annual rates of recruitment or survival would result.
As previously discussed in the 2022 IHA (87 FR 50293, August 16, 2022),
As noted for the 2022 IHA (87 FR 50293, August 16, 2022), the survey area overlaps a migratory corridor biologically important area (BIA) and migratory route seasonal management area (SMA) (Port of New Jersey/New York) for North Atlantic right whales. As the survey activities would be temporary and the spatial acoustic footprint produced by the survey would be very small relative to the spatial extent of the available migratory habitat in the BIA (269,448 km
Although take by Level B harassment of North Atlantic right whales has been proposed for authorization by NMFS, we anticipate such take may not actually occur, and should it occur, we anticipate a very low level of harassment because Atlantic Shores is required to maintain a shutdown zone of 500 m if a North Atlantic right whale is observed. The takes proposed for authorization account for any missed animals wherein the survey equipment is not shut down immediately. As shutdown would be called for immediately upon detection (if the whale is within 500 m), it is likely the exposure time would be very limited and received levels would not be much above the harassment threshold. Further, the 500-m SZ for North Atlantic right whales is conservative, considering the Level B harassment isopleth for the most impactful acoustic source (
We also note that our findings for other species with active UMEs that were previously described for the 2022 IHA remain applicable to this project. Therefore, in conclusion, there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures would effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the proposed authorized takes would have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the proposed authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Atlantic Shores' activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action; and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA, the North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale, and has determined that this activity falls within the scope of activities analyzed in NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021).
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Atlantic Shores for conducting high-resolution geophysical site characterization surveys off New Jersey and New York for a period of 1 year, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at
We request comment on our analyses (included in both this document and the referenced documents supporting the 2022 IHA (ITA application; issued IHA; and
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of the Proposed Activity and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice is planned, or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Proposed Activity and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Phase II of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Restoration Project in Richmond, CA. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than July 28, 2023.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On December 28, 2022, NMFS received a request from Caltrans for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities to restore portions of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Following NMFS' review of the application, Caltrans submitted a revised version on April 14, 2023, which was deemed adequate and
Caltrans would conduct construction activities to restore a portion of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Prior to restoration work Caltrans would install a debris containment system to ensure contaminants from construction are not deposited into San Francisco Bay. During the deployment and retrieval of the containment system disturbance (
The proposed IHA would be effective from August 1, 2023 to March 30, 2024. It is expected that the debris containment system would take up to 20 days to deploy and 10 days to remove (30 total days). The debris containment system would only be deployed during daylight hours but restoration work would occur throughout the day and night following deployment.
Located in the northern reaches of San Francisco Bay, the eastern portion of Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is surrounded by the industrial complex of the Chevron Richmond Refinery. Castro Rocks is an important haulout location for harbor seals in San Francisco Bay. The nearest outcropping of Castro Rocks, where harbor seals are known to haulout, is located approximately 21.3 meters (m) from Pier 55, and the farthest outcropping is located approximately 145 m from Pier 52.
The restoration improvements to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge include sandblasting, cleaning, and painting of the upper and lower deck and repair of the road deck and expansion joints on the lower deck. To remove the existing paint from the bridge sandblasting and rotary sanding would be completed using compressed air and power sanders. Primer and paint would then be applied using a pneumatic paint sprayer. All of the paint removal and painting work would rely on a generator and an air compressor from a barge on the north side of the bridge.
Localized spalled road deck concrete would be repaired and damaged concrete will be removed using pneumatic air chisels. All exposed rebar would be sandblasted prior to placement of new structural concrete in the spalled area. Bridge joints would be replaced on the lower deck of the bridge. Replacement of the bridge joints would involve concrete saws to remove the old joint.
All of these activities have the potential to emit sound in the vicinity of Castro Rocks. Although sound would be produced by the construction activities, the deployment of a debris containment system would attenuate the sound and block any visual disturbance from reaching Castro Rocks. All construction activities would be conducted within the debris containment system. As such, the deployment and removal of the debris containment system is expected to be the only activity that would result in takes of harbor seals hauled out at Castro Rocks. The visibility of workers in the project area during the installation and removal of the debris containment system would likely cause behavioral reactions such as flushing from the haul-out, not hauling out, head alerts, or moving farther from the disturbance to forage.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions in materials that are referenced in the document, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Pacific SARs, and NMFS has reviewed the most current information for the species. All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available online at:
As indicated above, harbor seals temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While California sea lions, Steller sea lions, northern elephant seals, northern fur seals, harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphins, gray whales, and humpback whales have been documented in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. For pinnipeds in the aforementioned list, there are no other documented haulouts close to the project area. Since no in-water work is proposed there would be no effects on these species potentially present in the water during this work. For the cetacean species listed above, no take is expected for those species due to the lack of in-water work planned for this project.
Pacific harbor seals are distributed from Baja California north to the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Seals primarily haulout on remote mainland and island beaches, reefs, and estuary areas. At haulouts, they will congregate to rest, socialize, breed, and molt. Haulouts are relatively consistent from year to year (Kopec and Harvey, 1995), and females have been documented to return to their own natal haulout when breeding (Green
The Pacific harbor seal population experienced an increase from 1981-2004, followed by a steady decrease from between 2005-2010. The maximum statewide count showed that the California stock sharply declined in 2009 and 2012 (Duncan 2019). Caltrans conducted extensive marine mammal surveys in San Francisco Bay before and during seismic retrofit on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge from 1998-2002. Caltrans determined that a minimum of 500 harbor seals occur within San Francisco Bay (Green
The nearest major haulout site to the project area is Castro Rocks, located approximately 21.3 meters from Pier 55 of the bridge, and the farthest outcropping is located approximately 145 meters from Pier 52 of the bridge. Use of Castro Rocks as a haulout site has been increasing over the years (Codde
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The visual stimuli generated by the deployment and removal of the debris containment system has the potential to cause Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled out at Castro Rocks. This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (personnel presence while assembling the containment system) have been observed to impact marine mammals.
The appearance of personnel may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of any harbor seals hauled out at Castro Rocks during the time of installation or removal of the debris containment system. Disturbance may result in reactions from harbor seals ranging from becoming alert to the presence of personnel (
There are other ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. They are most likely to be consequences of stampeding, a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus. However, NMFS does not expect this to occur at the project area. Caltrans will take precautions, such as establishment of a non-disturbance buffer within 400 feet (121 meters) of Castro Rocks on the south side of bridge, steering watercraft so as not to approach marine mammal haulout sites, and a requirement that watercraft maintain a slow steady speed when passing by Castro Rocks. Furthermore, the debris containment system would be installed outside of the pupping and molting season to ensure no impacts to pups at Castro Rocks.
Monitoring efforts from a 2001 seismic retrofit project at the same site found that on average there were 0.16 construction related disturbance events (flushes) per hour of field time caused by construction related disturbances during daytime monitoring at Castro Rocks (Green
Given the nature of the proposed activities (
There are no habitat modifications associated with the proposed activity. The debris containment system, construction waste, or watercraft (including barges) would not make contact with Castro Rocks. Thus, NMFS does not expect that the proposed activity would have any effects on marine mammal habitat and NMFS expects that there will be no long- or short-term physical impacts to pinniped habitat on Castro Rocks.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to the novel stimulus of the installation and removal of the debris containment system. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below, we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
In this section, we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information, which will inform the take calculations. We will also describe how this information is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate for each species.
Castro Rocks is the largest harbor seal haulout site in northern San Francisco Bay and is the second largest pupping site in San Francisco Bay (Kopec and Harvey 1995). The harbor seal pupping season is from April to July in San Francisco Bay. Seals are present on the haulout year round during medium to low tides (Green
Caltrans expects to harass approximately 300 harbor seals per day during the instillation and removal of the debris containment system. It is expected to take 30 days for Caltrans to complete this process. Based on these assumptions Caltrans requested authorization of 9,000 takes by Level B harassment of harbor seals while hauled out. NMFS concurs with this request.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
Caltrans proposes to implement the following measures during Phase II of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Restoration Project:
(1) Seasonal Work Restrictions: installation or removal of the debris containment system must not occur between Piers 52-57 from April 1-July 31 due to the pupping and molting period of harbor seals.
(2) Work must not take place outside of the containment system on the bridge between Piers 52-57 from April 1 to July 31.
(3) A non-disturbance buffer will be established within 400 feet (121 meters) of Castro Rocks on the south side of bridge.
(4) Staging of barges will not be allowed in the project area.
(5) Routes for watercraft to reach work locations would be predetermined in consultation with the project biologist to avoid harassment or take of marine mammals hauled out at Castro Rocks.
(6) No piles may be driven or vibrated to create staging locations for any watercraft. Barges and vessels would be tethered to the existing concrete bridge piers.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Caltrans will monitor to collect data on marine mammal behavior, counts of the individuals observed, and the frequency of the observations. Caltrans will collect sighting data and observations on behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of construction. All observers will be trained in the identification of marine mammals and marine mammal behaviors.
• Protected species observers (PSOs) must be independent observers (
• Biological monitoring must occur 5 days prior to the Project's start date, to establish baseline observations.
• Observation periods will encompass different tide levels and hours of the day. Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site will be conducted using binoculars as necessary.
• The proposed location of the PSOs will be at a monitoring platform positioned on Pier 55 of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, at the closest pier of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Castro Rocks. Pier 55 is approximately 21 meters from the nearest rock at Castro Rocks harbor seal colony.
Caltrans will record detailed information about counts and behaviors of all marine mammal species observed, times of observations, construction activities that occurred, any visual disturbances, and weather conditions, with particular focus on harbor seals at Castro Rocks. PSOs will use approved data forms to record the following information:
• Observation position and start and end times of observations;
• Weather conditions (sunny/cloudy, wind speed, fog, visibility), temperature, tide level, current, and sea state;
• Species counts (including with or without pup, and, if possible, sex and age classes of any observed marine mammal species;
• Identifying marks or color (scars, red pelage,
• Position relative to Richmond-San Rafael bridge (distance and direction);
• Movement (direction and relative speed);
• Behavior (logging (resting at the surface), swimming, spyhopping (raising above the water surface to view the area), foraging,
• Duration of sighting or times of multiple sightings of the same individual; and
• Details of any marine mammal behavioral disturbances, including information regarding the activity (
Caltrans shall submit a draft report to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project (if required), whichever comes first. The annual report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will become final. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted up to 30 days after receipt of comments. All PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data must be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
Reports shall contain the following information:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period including: (a) what type of restoration work is being completed, and (b) the total duration of work completed;
• PSO locations during monitoring; and
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance.
Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information must be reported:
• Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting;
• Time of sighting;
• Identification of the animal(s) (
• Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the bridge restoration work;
• Estimated number of animals by species (min/max/best estimate);
• Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, pups, and group composition,
• Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation measures, a description of specified actions that ensured, and resulting changes in behavior of the animal(s), if any.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved (if applicable);
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident (if applicable);
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source used in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Caltrans to determine necessary actions to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Caltrans would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Caltrans discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Caltrans discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
NMFS does not expect Caltrans' construction activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance that would negatively impact an individual animal's fitness, or result in injury, serious injury, or mortality. Although the installation and deployment of the debris containment system may disturb harbor seals hauled out at Castro Rocks, NMFS expects those impacts to be of short duration (20 days for installation and 10 day for removal) with minimal effect to the animals. Minor and brief responses including short-duration startle reactions, are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
The harbor seal stock for which incidental take authorization is proposed is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or determined to be strategic or depleted under the MMPA. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, including the establishment of seasonal work schedules, a non-disturbance buffer around Castro Rocks, and watercraft routes, would minimize disturbance of seals on Castro Rocks and make Level A harassment unlikely. Therefore, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to eliminate the potential for Level A harassment as well as reduce the amount and intensity for Level B harassment. The construction activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous construction activities conducted in other similar locations which have occurred with no reported injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment.
Anticipated and authorized takes are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) as construction activities will occur over the course of 30 days. Effects on individuals taken by Level B harassment, based upon reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, may include increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (
There is no unusual mortality event (UME) currently associated with the harbor seal stock and there are no Biologically Important Areas or known important habitat, aside from Castro Rocks itself, within the project area. While essential fish habitat (EFH) for several fish species does exist in the proposed project area, the proposed activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat since there is no in-water work. This construction activity should not impact marine mammals' foraging opportunities.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Anticipated impacts of Level B harassment include temporary behavior modifications;
• Short duration and intermittent nature of the debris containment system deployment and removal;
• The specified project area is very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of the species and do not include habitat areas of special significance (Biologically Important Areas);
• The lack of anticipated significant or long-term effects to marine mammal habitat;
• The presumed efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity; and,
• Monitoring reports from other construction work in San Francisco Bay have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stock.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize in this IHA is below one-third of the estimated stock abundance for harbor seals (see Estimated Take of Marine Mammals). The take percentage of the estimated stock of harbor seals, if all estimated take events are assumed to occur to new individuals, would be 29.1 percent. However, this take estimate is assumed to represent repeated takes of the same individuals over time and, therefore, the take estimate represents a significantly smaller actual percentage of the total stock. It is expected that approximately 300 harbor seals are hauled out on Castro Rocks on any given day during the project. The majority of these 300 individuals are expected to be comprised of the same animals during the duration of the project. Therefore, it can be reasonably expected that the percentage of individuals of the overall stock of harbor seals is closer to approximately 1 percent.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Caltrans for conducting Phase II of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Restoration Project in Richmond, CA from August 1, 2023 to March 30, 2024, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed Phase II of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Restoration Proj
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of approval of the final revised management plan for the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Notice is hereby given that the Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce approves the revised management plan for the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Mississippi. In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and its implementing regulations, the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources revised the Grand Bay Reserve's management plan, which replaces the plan previously approved in 2018.
The approved Grand Bay Reserve management plan can be downloaded or viewed at
Contact Matt Chasse of NOAA's Office for Coastal Management, by email at
Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), a State must revise the management plan for a research reserve at least every five years. Changes to a reserve's management plan may be made only after receiving written approval from NOAA. NOAA approves changes to management plans via notice in the
The management plan outlines the reserve's strategic goals and objectives; administrative structure; programs for conducting research and monitoring, education, and training; resource protection, restoration, and manipulation plans; public access and visitor use plans; consideration for future land acquisition; and facility development to support reserve operations. In particular, this updated management plan focuses on addressing specific research priorities including restoration effectiveness monitoring; understating physical and hydrological processes within the reserve; sources and impacts of contaminants; and the socio-economic impacts of ecosystem restoration. There is also an added focus related to monitoring programs as a valued regional and national reference site through the use of abiotic parameters, sentinel sites, atmospheric mercury, and restoration monitoring. Furthermore, the plan prioritizes improving public access and the visitor experience through enhanced trail and debris management efforts, and a greater focus on habitat restoration, especially upland habitats (wet pine savannas and flatwoods) and along the marsh upland interface. Much of the effort in this plan is linked to the multi-year Grand Bay Land Acquisition and Habitat Management project.
The reserve's training program will design trainings around priority issues and a new focus area: transferring skills and knowledge relating to flood mitigation to nearby disadvantaged communities. Education programming will have a continued emphasis on place-based learning for students, teachers, non-traditional audiences (
Since the last management plan, the reserve has prioritized the comprehensive management of upland and estuarine resources at a landscape scale. Public trails were created or maintained, and boat access was improved. The reserve also has actively used fire management to restore wet pine savanna in collaboration with State and Federal partners. The revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the 18,049-acre research reserve for the next five years.
Furthermore, no reserve boundary or acreage changes are incorporated into the updated management plan.
NOAA reviewed the environmental impacts of the Grand Bay revised management plan and determined that this action is categorically-excluded from further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, consistent with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public hybrid meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) will hold a public hybrid meeting to address the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the
The OEAP public hybrid meeting will be held on July 19, 2023, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., AST.
The OEAP public hybrid meeting will be held at the Courtyard Isla Verde Beach Resort, 7012 Boca de Cangrejos Avenue, Carolina, Puerto Rico.
You may join the OEAP public hybrid meeting (via Zoom) from a computer, tablet or smartphone by entering the following address:
Miguel Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 398-3717.
The following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed:
The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on July 19, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., and will end on July 19, 2023, at 5 p.m., AST. Other than the start time, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated, at the discretion of the Chair. In addition, the meeting may be completed prior to the date established in this notice.
For any additional information on this public hybrid meeting you may contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 226-8849.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of modification to expiration date of Letter of Authorization (LOA).
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), notification is hereby given that NMFS has modified the expiration date of a LOA issued to Echo Offshore, L.L.C. (Echo) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOM.
This LOA is effective through December 31, 2023.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. GOM over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS issued an LOA to Echo on January 5, 2023, for the take of marine mammals incidental to a two-dimensional (2D) high resolution seismic survey in Lease Block G14576 (Main Pass Area 91) effective through June 30, 2023. Please see the
Echo initially anticipated that the activity would occur at some point between January 5 and June 30, 2023. Echo subsequently conveyed to NMFS that the survey would occur later than previously expected. Echo has requested modification to the expiration date of the LOA (from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2023) to account for any potential delays. There are no other changes to Echo's planned activity. Since issuance of the LOA, no survey work has occurred.
NMFS has changed the expiration date of the LOA from June 30, 2023 to December 31, 2023. There are no other changes to the LOA as described in the January 26, 2023,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hybrid meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Puerto Rico District Advisory Panel (PR-DAP) will hold a public hybrid meeting to discuss the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the
The PR-DAP public hybrid meeting will be held on July 18, 2023, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Atlantic Standard Time (AST).
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott Isla Verde Resort, 7012 Boca de Cangrejos Avenue, Carolina, Puerto Rico 00979.
You may join the PR-DAP public hybrid meeting (via Zoom) from a computer, tablet or smartphone by entering the following addresses:
Miguel Rolón, Executive Director,
The items included in the tentative agenda are:
Other than the starting date and time the order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items, at the discretion of the Chair. The meeting will begin on July 18, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. AST, and will end on July 18, 2023, at 4:30 p.m. AST.
For any additional information on this public hybrid meeting, you may contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 226-8849.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 28, 2023.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Cliff Hutt, Fisheries Management Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 301-427-8503; or
This request is for renewal and extension without revision of a current information collection request (ICR) 0648-0372 Electronic Monitoring Systems for Atlantic HMS. This renewal and extension is separate from the temporary ICR associated with Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (0648-BI10), which is considering substantial revisions to 0648-0372. Amendment 15 will not be finalized before the current ICR expires, necessitating this separate renewal effort.
Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and other electronic monitoring systems collect important information on fishing effort, catch, and the geographic location of fishing effort and catch for certain sectors of the Atlantic HMS fleet. Data collected through these systems are used in both domestic and international fisheries management, including for law enforcement, stock assessments, and quota management purposes. Atlantic HMS vessels required to use VMS are pelagic longline, bottom longline (directed shark permit holders in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia), and gillnet (directed shark permit holders consistent with the requirements of the Atlantic large whale take reduction plan requirements at 50 CFR 229.39.(h)) vessels. In addition to VMS, pelagic longline vessels are also required to have electronic monitoring systems to monitor catch and account for bluefin tuna interactions, and, when appropriate, monitoring the harvest of shortfin mako sharks.
NMFS Office of Law Enforcement monitors fleet adherence to gear- and time-area restrictions with VMS position location data. Gear restricted areas and time-area closures are important. Atlantic HMS management tools that have been implemented to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish, sea turtles, and bluefin tuna, among other species. Electronic monitoring data from the pelagic longline fleet are used by NMFS to accurately monitor bluefin tuna catch by the pelagic longline fleet, to ensure compliance with Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) limits and requirements, and to ensure that the Longline category bluefin tuna quota is not over-harvested. Additionally, electronic monitoring is used to verify disposition of retained shortfin mako sharks, when retention is allowed, consistent with binding international agreements. VMS reporting of bluefin tuna catch is used to monitor IBQ allocations in real-time.
Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Atlantic Tunas Conservation Act (ATCA). Under the MSA, management measures must be consistent with the National Standards, and fisheries must be managed to maintain optimum yield, rebuild overfished fisheries, and prevent overfishing. Under ATCA, the Secretary
First-time VMS respondents must install a VMS unit and submit an activation checklist to NMFS via mail. Hail-out, hail-in, hourly position reports, and bluefin tuna catch reports must be submitted to NMFS electronically via the VMS communication system. First-time electronic monitoring respondents must have an electronic monitoring system installed by a NMFS contractor. Except when the hard drive is at capacity after one trip or otherwise stated by NMFS in writing, electronic monitoring data must be submitted after every other pelagic longline trip by mailing computer hard drives to the designated NMFS contractor.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,517,522 ('522 patent).
Ali Salimi, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, at 571-272-0909 or
35 U.S.C. 156 generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years, if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review. 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) generally provides that the term of such a patent may be extended for no more than five interim periods of up to one year each, if the approval phase of the regulatory review period is reasonably expected to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
On June 15, 2023, The Regents of the University of Michigan, the owner of record of the '522 patent, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of the '522 patent. The '522 patent claims a method of using the product recombinant ADAMTS13 (rADAMTS13), a recombinant A disintegrin and metalloprotease with thrombospondin type-1 motifs 13. The application for interim patent term extension indicates that a Biologics License Application No. 125795/0 was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on March 17, 2023, and that the FDA's review thereof is ongoing.
Review of the interim patent term extension application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the '522 patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156. Because it appears the approval phase of the regulatory review period will continue beyond the expiration date of the patent,
An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,517,522 is granted for a period of one year from the original expiration date of the '522 patent.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain
Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0097, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method and identify that it is for the renewal of Collection Number 3038-0097. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Daniel O'Connell, Special Counsel, (202) 418-5583,
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
88 FR 40790, June 22, 2023.
12:00 noon EDT, Monday, June 26, 2023.
The meeting has been canceled.
Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on July 18, 2023, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the Technology Advisory Committee (TAC or Committee) will hold an in-person public meeting at the CFTC's Washington, DC headquarters with options for the public to attend virtually. At this meeting, the TAC will discuss digital assets and blockchain technology, cybersecurity, and emerging and evolving technologies.
The meeting will be held on July 18, 2023, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please note that the meeting may end early if the TAC has completed its business. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by July 25, 2023.
The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. You may submit public comments, identified by “Technology Advisory Committee,” through the CFTC website at
Anthony Biagioli, TAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210, Kansas City, MO 64108; (816) 960-7722; or
The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation.
Members of the public may also view a live webcast of the meeting via the
After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's website,
Wednesday, June 28, 2023; 2:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held virtually and in person at Bethesda, MD.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Briefing Matter.
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).
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of a modified system of records entitled the “National Student Loan Data System” (NSLDS) (18-11-06). The information contained in this system is maintained for various purposes relating to aid applicants and recipients. These include determining aid applicants' and recipients' eligibility for Federal student financial assistance under the programs authorized by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); assisting institutions of higher education participating in and administering the title IV, HEA programs by verifying the eligibility of aid recipients for, and tracking, Federal student loans; and assisting the Department's oversight and administration of the title IV, HEA programs, including evaluating their effectiveness.
Submit your comments on this modified system of records notice on or before July 28, 2023.
This modified system of records notice will become applicable upon publication in the
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
Valerie Sherrer, Director, Partner System Integration Division, Program Technical and Business Support, Partner Participation and Oversight Directorate, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, UCP, 830 First St. NE, Room 41F1, Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: 202 377 3547. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, the Department proposes to modify the system of records notice entitled, “National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)” (18-11-06), which was last published in full in the
The Department is modifying this system of records notice by making a global change to delete and replace “store” or “stored” with “maintain” or “maintained,” as applicable, to better align with the terminology used in the Privacy Act.
The Department is modifying this system of records notice by making a global change to delete and replace “borrowers” with “aid recipients,” to be more consistent with previous changes.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “SYSTEM LOCATION” as follows:
(i) To update the description of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) from a “computer” to “hosting” center to better align with industry terminology; and
(ii) To update the address of ASM Research from Niagara Falls, NY, to Fairfax, VA.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” relating to applicants and recipients of aid under title IV of the HEA as follows:
(i) Purpose (5) is updated to include approved Prison Education Programs (PEPs) (the FAFSA Simplification Act allows for expanding access to Federal Pell Grants to include Federal and State penal facilities' approved educational programs), and money earned by students under the Federal Work-Study (FWS) Program; and
(ii) Purpose (8) is updated to replace the references to “postsecondary institutions” and “postsecondary institution” with “postsecondary institutions and programs” to clarify the Department's evaluation of postsecondary institutions' instructional programs for effectiveness for use in consumer tools.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” relating to the institutions of higher education (also referred to herein as “educational institutions” or “postsecondary institutions”) participating in and administering the title IV, HEA programs as follows:
(i) Purpose (13) is updated to replace the references to “postsecondary institutions” and “postsecondary institution” with “postsecondary institutions and programs” to clarify the Department's evaluation of postsecondary institutions' instructional programs for effectiveness for use in consumer tools; and
(ii) Purpose (14) is updated to delete and replace “challenge” with “ensure the accuracy of” to clarify the purpose of providing data for gainful employment performance metrics.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” relating to the Department's oversight and administration of title IV, HEA programs as follows:
(i) Purpose (2) is updated to delete and replace “studies and policy development” with “analysis and development, and the implementation and evaluation of educational policies in relation to title IV, HEA programs”;
(ii) Purpose (9) is updated to clarify that this system assists in the calculation of metrics related to other title IV, HEA educational programs than just gainful employment programs; and
(iii) Purpose (17) is added to provide title IV, HEA loan information to support the calculation of payment amounts under Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans.
The Department is modifying the fourth paragraph of the section entitled “CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM” to indicate that the system contains records on aid recipients under the FWS Program and the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) Program.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM” as follows:
(i) The Department added a new note that explains that the Federal Tax Information (FTI) the Department will directly obtain from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act will not be maintained in this system of records but in a separate system of records entitled the “FUTURE Act System (FAS)” (18-11-23), for which the Department will publish a system of records notice in the
(ii) Category (1) is updated to replace “driver's license information” with “driver's license number and State of issuance;”
(iii) Category (2) is updated to include an incarcerated student indicator flag for identification and tracking of aid recipients;
(iv) Category (4) is updated to clarify that driver's license details consist of driver's license number and State of issuance;
(v) Category (7) is updated to include “Student Aid Index (SAI),” which corresponds with the new definition as defined in Section 473(a) of the HEA, as amended by the FAFSA Simplification Act and the FAFSA Simplification Act Technical Corrections Act;
(vi) Category (8) is updated to add the spouse of an independent aid applicant or aid recipient, the parent(s) of a dependent aid applicant, and starting with award year 2024-2025, the parents' college attendance status;
(vii) Category (9) is updated to include if the IDR aid applicant or aid recipient (or spouse, where applicable), provided consent/affirmative approval both to redisclose Federal Tax Information (FTI) of such individuals pursuant to clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of section 6103(l)(13)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and for disclosure under section 494(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a)) of information to the IRS for the IRS to disclose FTI to the Department as part
(viii) Category (10) is updated to include FSEOG and for Federal Pell Grants, approved PEPs (the FAFSA Simplification Act allows for expanding access to Federal Pell Grants to include Federal and State penal facilities' approved educational programs) to track aid recipients;
(ix) Category (11) is updated to include earnings amounts under the FWS Program to track individuals with FWS; and
(x) Category (19) is updated to clarify that the system includes information provided and generated through customer interactions with contact center support via inbound and outbound channels (phone, chat, webform, email, customer satisfaction survey, fax, physical mail, and digital engagement platforms), including chat transcripts, email communications, audio recordings of customer calls, and screen recordings of contact center desktop support during customer interactions.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of a modified system of records to read as follows:
National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (18-11-06).
Unclassified.
Director, Partner Systems Integration Division, Program Technical and Business Support Group, Partner Management and Support Services, Partner Participation and Oversight, Federal Student Aid (FSA), U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza (UCP), 830 First St. NE, Room 41F1, Washington, DC 20202-5454.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Government Cloud, 410 Terry Ave., North Seattle, WA 98109-5210. (This is the hosting center for the NSLDS application, where all electronic NSLDS information is processed and maintained.)
Accenture, 22451 Shaw Rd., Sterling, VA 20166-4319. (This is Accenture's main program office.)
Accenture DC, 820 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20202-4227. (This location is an alternate Accenture work site to support NSLDS.)
Accenture Federal Services, 10931 Laureate Dr., San Antonio, TX 78249. (This location is an alternate Accenture work site to support NSLDS.)
NTT Global Data Centers Americas, 44664 Guilford Dr., Ashburn, VA 20147 and 2008 Lookout Dr., Garland, TX 75044. (NSLDS call recordings are maintained at these locations.)
Oracle Service Cloud, 500 Eldorado Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80021. (Provides customer case management and reporting capabilities to NSLDS Help Desk Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) and has the capability to track and maintain NSLDS inquiries, which allows CSRs to respond to these cases/inquiries.)
The following three listings are the locations of the NSLDS Customer Service Centers:
ASM Research, 4050 Legato Rd., #1100, Fairfax, VA 22033;
Senture, LLC, 4255 W. Highway 90, Monticello, KY 42633-3398; and
Veteran Call Center, LLC, 53 Knightsbridge Rd., Suite 216, Piscataway, NJ 08854-3925.
Director, Partner Systems Integration Division, Program Technical and Business Support Group, Partner Participation and Oversight Directorate, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, UCP, 830 First St. NE, Room 41F1, Washington, DC 20202-5454.
The authority under which the system is maintained includes sections 101, 102, 132(i), 485, and 485B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1015a(i), 1092, and 1092b), section 431(2) and (3) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1231a(2)-(3)), and the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (20 U.S.C. 1098bb) (including any waivers or modifications that the Secretary of Education deems necessary to make to any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the HEA to achieve specific purposes listed in the section in connection with a war, other military operation, or a national emergency). The collection of Social Security numbers (SSNs) of individuals who are covered by this system is authorized by 31 U.S.C. 7701 and Executive Order 9397 (November 22, 1943), as amended by Executive Order 13478 (November 18, 2008).
The information contained in this system is maintained for the following purposes relating to applicants and recipients of aid under title IV of the HEA:
(
(1) to determine the eligibility of aid applicants and recipients for Federal student financial aid programs authorized by title IV of the HEA;
(2) to report changes in aid applicant and recipient enrollment status and enrollment in gainful employment programs;
(3) to track aid recipients who owe title IV, HEA obligations (debtors);
(4) to maintain information on the status of student loans;
(5) to maintain information on awards to students under the Federal Pell Grant program (including approved Prison Education Programs (PEPs) (the FAFSA Simplification Act allows for expanding access to Federal Pell Grants to include Federal and State penal facilities' approved educational programs), the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program, the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant program, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant program, the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) program, the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant program,, and money earned under the Federal Work Study (FWS) Program;
(6) to provide aid recipients and NSLDS users with loan refund and discharge details;
(7) to identify qualifying individuals and inform them about title IV, HEA benefits, including total and permanent disability (TPD) discharges, Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), and benefits under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. 3901-4043, to streamline the process for applying for loans and benefits, and to recoup payments or delinquent debts under the title IV, HEA programs;
(8) to provide consumer tools to the public to better evaluate the effectiveness of postsecondary institutions and programs, considering their costs, financial aid, loan repayment rates, completion rates, median debts, and the aggregate earnings of title IV, HEA aid recipients who were enrolled at postsecondary institutions and programs participating in the title IV, HEA programs, so that the public can make informed decisions about which postsecondary institutions and programs to attend;
(9) to enable the Department, or other Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agencies, to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints concerning the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors, or to investigate, respond to, or resolve aid recipients' requests for assistance or relief with regard to title IV, HEA program funds;
(10) to conduct testing, analysis, or take other administrative actions needed to prepare for or execute programs under title IV of the HEA; and
(11) to process income eligibility information and documentation for aid applicants and recipients, or applicable aid applicants' and recipients' parents or spouses, pertaining to the discharge of eligible loans under title IV, HEA programs.
The information in the NSLDS is also maintained for the following purposes relating to institutions of higher education (also referred to herein as “educational institutions” or “postsecondary institutions”) participating in and administering the title IV, HEA programs:
(1) to permit Department staff, Department contractors, guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, and eligible institutions of higher education to verify the eligibility of a student, potential student, or parent for loans or Pell Grants or Pell Grant disbursements;
(2) to provide student aggregate loan calculations to educational institutions;
(3) to determine default rates for educational institutions, guaranty agencies, and lenders;
(4) to prepare electronic financial aid histories on aid applicants and recipients for educational institutions, guaranty agencies, Department staff, and Department contractors;
(5) to alert educational institutions of changes in students' financial aid eligibility via the Transfer Student Monitoring process;
(6) to assist Department staff, Department contractors and agents, guaranty agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ), educational institutions, lenders, and servicers in collecting debts arising from the receipt of title IV, HEA funds;
(7) to assess title IV, HEA program activities by guaranty agencies, educational institutions, lenders, and servicers;
(8) to display organizational contact information provided by educational institutions, guaranty agencies, lenders, and servicers;
(9) to provide reporting capabilities for educational institutions, guaranty agencies, lenders, and servicers for use in title IV, HEA administrative functions and for the Department or other Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies for use in oversight and compliance;
(10) to provide financial institutions and servicers, Department staff, and Department contractors with contact information on loan holders for use in the collection of loans;
(11) to provide educational institutions and servicers with information to resolve overpayments of Pell, ACG, National SMART, TEACH, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants, and FSEOG grants;
(12) to obtain data on and to report on students in a gainful employment program for the purposes of establishing whether a particular gainful employment program is successfully preparing students to be gainfully employed and making this information available to the educational institution;
(13) to provide consumer tools, such as the College Scorecard, that are designed to simplify information that prospective students receive about costs, financial aid, loan repayment rates, completion rates, median debts, and aggregate earnings of title IV, HEA aid recipients who were enrolled at postsecondary institutions and programs participating in the title IV, HEA programs so that prospective students can make informed decisions about which postsecondary institutions and programs to attend; and
(14) to provide data for educational institutions to ensure the accuracy of their gainful employment performance metrics.
The information maintained in this system is also maintained for the following purposes relating to the Department's oversight and administration of the title IV, HEA programs:
(1) to assist audit and program review planning;
(2) to support research, analysis and development, and the implementation and evaluation of educational policies in relation to title IV, HEA programs;
(3) to conduct budget analysis and program review planning;
(4) to provide information that supports the Department's compliance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (CRA) (2 U.S.C. 661
(5) to ensure only authorized users access the NSLDS database and to maintain a history of the aid applicant and recipient information reviewed;
(6) to track the Department's interest in loans funded through the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA) (Pub. L. 110-227);
(7) to track TEACH grants that have been converted to loans;
(8) to track eligibility for PSLF;
(9) to assist in the calculation of metrics related to gainful employment and other title IV, HEA educational programs;
(10) to provide data for program oversight and strategic decision-making in the administration of higher education programs;
(11) to track eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans and interest subsidy based upon the level of study,
(12) to evaluate the effectiveness of an institution's education programs, and help provide information to the public at the institutional and programmatic level on this effectiveness;
(13) to verify that Federal, State, local, and Tribal statutory, regulatory, and program requirements are met by educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, and guaranty agencies;
(14) to help governmental entities at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels exercise their supervisory and administrative powers (including, but not limited to, licensure, examination, discipline, regulation, or oversight of educational institutions, Department contractors, guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, and third-party servicers) or to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints regarding the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors, or to update information or correct errors contained in Department records regarding an aid recipient's title IV, HEA program funds;
(15) to provide information to support web-based access to aid applicant's and recipient's title IV, HEA program data including enrollment;
(16) to track loan transfers from one holder or servicer to another; and
(17) to provide title IV, HEA loan information to support the calculation of monthly payment amounts under Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans.
This system contains records on individual title IV, HEA aid applicants and recipients.
This system also contains information on the parent(s) of a dependent aid applicant or recipient and the spouse of a married aid applicant or recipient.
In addition, this system contains records on aid recipients and endorsers who received, or signed the promissory note for a loan(s) under one of the programs authorized under title IV of the HEA, including:
(1) the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan) Program, including Federal Direct Unsubsidized and Subsidized Stafford/Ford Loans, Federal Direct Consolidation Loans, and Federal Direct PLUS Loans;
(2) the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program,
(3) the Federal Insured Student Loan (FISL) Program,
(4) the Federal Perkins Loan Program (including National Defense Student Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and Perkins Expanded Lending and Income Contingent Loans) (Perkins Loans).
This system also contains records on aid recipients of Federal Pell Grants, ACG, National SMART Grants, TEACH Grants, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants, the FWS Program, and FSEOGs, as well as on individuals who owe an overpayment on a Federal Pell Grant, an ACG, a TEACH Grant, a National SMART Grant, a FSEOG, an Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, or a Federal Perkins Loan.
Further, this system contains student enrollment information for individuals who have received title IV, HEA student assistance, as well as Master Conduit Loan Program Data, Master Loan Participation Program (LPP) Data, and loan-level detail on FFEL Subsidized, Unsubsidized, and Grad and Parent PLUS loans funded through those programs.
This system also contains records on students who are title IV, HEA aid recipients and who attended, or who are attending, a gainful employment program at a postsecondary institution.
Lastly, this system contains records from 2014-2021 on the level of study, CIP code, and published length of an educational program in which a student receiving title IV, HEA Federal student aid was enrolled to limit his or her eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans to no more than 150 percent of the published length of the educational program in which the student was enrolled, and to determine when a aid recipient who enrolled after reaching the 150 percent limit would have been responsible for the accruing interest on outstanding Direct Subsidized Loans.
Records in the NSLDS include, but are not limited to:
(1) aid applicant and recipient identifier information, including SSN, name, date of birth, physical address, phone number, email address, and driver's license number and State of issuance;
(2) aid applicant demographic information, including an aid applicant's parent's and spouse's demographic information (if applicable), student enrollment, incarcerated student indicator flag, list of participating title IV, HEA institutions of higher education selected by the aid applicant to receive the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) data along with residency plans, and the financial profile of an applicant and an aid applicant's parent(s) or spouse, as reported and calculated through the FAFSA form; and processing flags, indicators, rejections, and overrides;
(3) information on the aid recipient's loan(s) covering the period from the origination of the loan through final payment, consolidation, discharge, or other final disposition, including details such as loan amount, disbursements, balances, loan status, repayment plan payments and related information, collections, claims, deferments, forbearances, refunds, and discharges;
(4) information on an aid applicant's or recipient's endorser or co-signer of a PLUS loan application from the origination of the loan through final payment, consolidation, discharge, or other final disposition, including details such as co-signer SSN, name, date of birth, driver's license number and State of issuance (if reported), active-duty status (if applicable and reported), email address, address, phone number, and relevant loan information with respect to the loan on which they are the endorser or co-signer;
(5) for students who began a program of study that prepares them for gainful employment in a recognized occupation pursuant to sections 1001 and 1002 of the HEA (“gainful employment program”), student identifiers including the student's SSN, date of birth, and name, student enrollment information including the Office of Postsecondary Education identification number (OPE ID number) of the institution, the CIP code for the gainful employment program in which the student enrolled, and, if the student completed the program, the completion date and the CIP code of the completed program, the level of study, the amount of the student's private educational loan debt, the amount of institutionally provided financing owed by the student, and whether the student matriculated to a higher credentialed program at the same institution or another institution;
(6) aggregated income information on graduates and non-completers of a particular gainful employment program, and the median loan debt incurred by students enrolled in the gainful employment program, regardless of whether they completed the program;
(7) student demographic information, such as dependency status, citizenship, veteran status, marital status, gender,
(8) information on the parent(s) of a dependent aid applicant or aid recipient or the spouse of an independent aid applicant or aid recipient, including name, date of birth, SSN, marital status, email address, highest level of schooling completed and starting with award year 2024-2025, the parents' college attendance status, and income and asset information;
(9) information related to an aid applicant's or recipient's application for title IV, HEA benefits, including information relating to IDR or PSLF eligibility such as current income; family size; repayment plan selections; employer name; dates of employment; employment status; if the IDR aid applicant or aid recipient (or spouse, where applicable), provided consent/affirmative approval both to redisclose Federal Tax Information (FTI) of such individuals pursuant to clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of section 6103(l)(13)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and under subsection 494(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a)) of information to the IRS for the IRS to disclose FTI to the Department as part of a matching program to determine eligibility for, or repayment obligations under, IDR plans under title IV of the HEA with respect to loans under part D (Direct Loan program) of title IV of the HEA; repayment amount; and information about the aid recipient's spouse, if the aid applicant or recipient is married;
(10) Federal Pell Grant, FSEOG, ACG Grant, National SMART Grant, TEACH Grant, and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant amounts, dates of disbursement, and for Federal Pell Grants, approved PEPs (the FAFSA Simplification Act allows for expanding access to Federal Pell Grants to include Federal and State penal facilities' approved educational programs);
(11) Federal Pell Grant, ACG Grant, National SMART Grant, TEACH Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, FSEOG, Federal Perkins Loan Program overpayment amounts and/or earning amounts under the FWS Program;
(12) Information maintained by a guaranty agency, including, demographic, contact, and identifier information, a aid applicant's FFEL loan(s), and the lender(s), holder(s), and servicer(s) of the borrower's FFEL loan(s);
(13) NSLDS user profiles that include name, SSN, date of birth, employer, and NSLDS username;
(14) information concerning the date of any default on loans and the aggregated loan data to support cohort default rate calculations for educational institutions, financial institutions, and guaranty agencies;
(15) pre- and post-screening results used to determine a student's or parent's aid eligibility;
(16) information on financial institutions participating in the loan participation and sale programs established by the Department under ECASLA, including the collection of: ECASLA loan-level funding amounts, dates of ECASLA participation for financial institutions, dates and amounts of loans sold to the Department under ECASLA, and the amount of loans funded by the Department's programs but repurchased by the lender;
(17) information on the student's educational institution, level of study, the CIP code, and published length for the program in which the student enrolled for an institution or programs of studies at the institution;
(18) information obtained pursuant to matching programs or other information exchanges with Federal and State agencies and other administrators of Federal funds and programs to assist in identifying individuals who may be eligible for aid applicant's or recipient's benefits related to their title IV, HEA loans or other title IV, HEA obligations, including TPD discharges, loan deferments, interest rate reductions, PSLF, and other Federal and State loan repayment or discharge benefits, or for the purpose of recouping payments or delinquent debts under title IV, HEA programs; and
(19) Information provided and generated through customer interactions with contact center support via inbound and outbound channels (phone, chat, webform, email, customer satisfaction survey, fax, physical mail, and digital engagement platforms). Information includes, but is not limited to: chat transcripts, email communications, audio recordings of customer calls, and screen recordings of contact center desktop support during customer interactions.
Information is obtained from other Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, other administrators of Federal funds and programs, guaranty agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions and servicers, aid applicants and recipients, parents and spouses of applicable aid applicants and recipients, and designated co-signers and endorsers.
Information is also obtained from other Department systems, or their successor systems, such as the Federal Loan Servicers (covered by the system of records entitled “Common Services for Borrowers (CSB)”); Debt Management Collection System (covered by the system of records entitled “Common Services for Borrowers (CSB)”); Common Origination and Disbursement System (covered by the system of records entitled “Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System”); Financial Management System (covered by the system of records entitled “Financial Management System (FMS)”); Student Aid internet Gateway, Participant Management System (covered by the system of records entitled “Student Aid internet Gateway (SAIG), Participation Management System”); Postsecondary Education Participants System (covered by the system of records entitled “Postsecondary Education Participants System”); and all systems covered by the system of records entitled “Aid Awareness and Application Processing.” Information in this system also may be obtained from other persons or entities from which data is obtained under routine uses set forth below.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records notice without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(a) To verify the identity of the applicant involved, the accuracy of the record, or to assist with the determination of program eligibility and benefits, as well as institutional program eligibility, the Department may disclose records to the applicant, guaranty agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions and servicers, and to Federal and State agencies;
(b) To support default rate calculations and/or provide information on aid recipients' current loan status, the Department may disclose records to
(c) To determine if educational programs lead to gainful employment in a recognized occupation, the Department may disclose records to educational institutions;
(d) To provide financial aid history information to aid in their administration of title IV, HEA programs, the Department may disclose records to educational institutions, guaranty agencies, loan holders, or servicers;
(e) To support auditors and program reviewers in planning and carrying out their assessments of title IV, HEA program compliance, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions and servicers, and to Federal, State, and local agencies;
(f) To support governmental researchers and policy analysts, the Department may disclose records to governmental organizations at the Federal, State, or local level, using safeguards for system integrity and provided that the recipient agrees to establish and maintain safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of the disclosed records;
(g) To support Federal budget analysts in the development of budget needs and forecasts, the Department may disclose records to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and to Federal and State agencies;
(h) To assist in locating holders of loan(s), the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions and servicers, and Federal agencies;
(i) To assist analysts in assessing title IV, HEA program participation by guaranty agencies, educational institutions, and financial institutions and servicers, the Department may disclose records to Federal and State agencies;
(j) To assist loan holders in locating aid recipients, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions that hold an interest in the loan and their servicers, and to Federal agencies;
(k) To assist with meeting requirements under the CRA, the Department may disclose records to Federal agencies;
(l) To assist program administrators with tracking refunds and discharges of title IV, HEA loans, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions and servicers, and to Federal and State agencies;
(m) To enforce the terms of a loan, assist in the collection of a loan, or assist in the collection of an aid overpayment, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies, loan servicers, educational institutions and financial institutions, to the DOJ and private counsel retained by the DOJ, and to other Federal, State, local, or Tribal agencies;
(n) To assist the Department in tracking loans funded under ECASLA, the Department may disclose records to Federal agencies;
(o) To obtain data needed to assist the Department in evaluating the effectiveness of an institution's education programs and to provide the public with greater transparency about the level of economic return of an educational institution and their programs that receive title IV, HEA program assistance, the Department may disclose records to educational institutions and to Federal and State agencies, including the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of the Treasury; and
(p) To help Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental entities exercise their supervisory and administrative powers (including licensure, examination, discipline, regulation, or oversight of educational institutions, Department contractors, guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, and third-party servicers) or to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints submitted regarding the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors, the Department may disclose records to governmental entities at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels. These records may include all aspects of records relating to loans and grants made under title IV of the HEA, to permit these governmental entities to verify compliance with debt collection, consumer protection, financial, and other applicable statutory, regulatory, or local requirements. Before making a disclosure to these Federal, State, local, or Tribal governmental entities, the Department will require them to maintain safeguards consistent with the Privacy Act to protect the security and confidentiality of the disclosed records.
(2)
(3)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components; or
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity; or
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ agrees to or has been requested to provide or arrange for representation of the employee; or
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department requests representation for or has agreed to represent the employee; or
(v) The United States, where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a)
(b)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): The Department may disclose the following information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a valid overdue claim of the Department: (1) the name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual responsible for the claim; (2) the amount, status, and history of the claim; and (3) the program under which the claim arose. The Department may disclose the information specified in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and the procedures contained in subsection 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). A consumer reporting agency to which these disclosures may be made is defined in 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) and 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
The records are maintained electronically.
In order for users to retrieve aid applicant or recipient information, they must supply the respective SSN, name, and date of birth.
Records are primarily retained and disposed of in accordance with ED Records Schedule 051: FSA National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (DAA-0441-2017-0004) (ED 051). The Department has submitted amendments to ED 051 for NARA's consideration and will not destroy records covered by ED 051 until such amendments are in effect, as applicable.
Department personnel make site visits to ADP facilities for the purpose of ensuring that ADP security procedures continue to be met. Privacy Act and ADP system security requirements are specifically included in contracts. The NSLDS project directors, project officers, and the system manager oversee compliance with these requirements.
In accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), as amended by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, every Department system must receive a signed Authorization to Operate (ATO) from a designated Department official. The ATO process includes a rigorous assessment of security controls, a plan of actions and milestones to remediate any identified deficiencies, and a continuous monitoring program.
FISMA controls implemented are comprised of a combination of management, operational, and technical controls, and include the following control families: access control, awareness and training, audit and accountability, security assessment and authorization, configuration management, contingency planning, identification and authentication, incident response, maintenance, media protection, physical and environmental protection, planning, personnel security, privacy, risk assessment, system and services acquisition, system and communications protection, system and information integrity, and program management.
If you wish to gain access to a record in this system, you must contact the system manager with the necessary particulars such as your name, date of birth, SSN, the name of the school or lender from which the loan or grant was obtained, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Requests by an individual for access to a record must meet the requirements of the regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If you wish to contest the content of a record in the system of records, you must contact the system manager with the necessary particulars such as your name, date of birth, SSN, the name of the school or lender from which the loan or grant was obtained, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. You must also identify the specific item(s) to be changed, and provide a justification for the change, including any supporting documentation. Requests to amend a record must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in this system of records, you must contact the system manager with the necessary particulars such as your name, date of birth, SSN, the name of the school or lender from which the loan or grant was obtained, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Requests for notification about whether the system of records contains information about an individual must meet the requirements of the regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
None.
The System of Records entitled the “National Student Loan Data System” (18-11-06) was last modified and published in full on September 22, 2022 (87 FR 57873).
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of a modified system of records entitled “Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System” (18-11-02). The information contained in this system is maintained for various purposes relating to aid applicants and recipients including determining their eligibility for Federal student financial assistance under the programs authorized by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); institutions of higher education participating in and administering title IV, HEA programs; and the Department's oversight of title IV, HEA programs.
Submit your comments on this modified system of records notice on or before July 28, 2023.
This modified system of records notice will become applicable upon publication in the
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via regulations.gov, please contact the program contact person listed under
Shannon Mahan, Acting Director, Program Delivery Services Group, Union Center Plaza, room 64E1, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: 202-377-3019. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, the Department proposes to modify the system of records notice entitled, “Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System” (18-11-02), which was last published in full in the
The Department is modifying this system of records by making a global change to delete and replace “store” or “stored” with “maintain” or “maintained”, as applicable, to better align with the terminology used in the Privacy Act.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “SYSTEM LOCATION” as follows:
(i) To update the description of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) from a “computer” to “hosting” center to better align with industry terminology; and
(ii) To update the address of ASM Research from Niagara Falls, NY, to Fairfax, VA.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “AUTHORITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM” to add “the FAFSA Simplification Act (Title VII, Division FF of Pub. L. 116-260) (including, but not limited to the following Sections of the FAFSA Simplification Act: Subsection 702(m), which amends Section 483 of the HEA, and Section 703 that amends Section 401 of the HEA), and the FAFSA Simplification Act Technical Corrections Act (Division R of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-103))” to improve the financial aid application experience and expand title IV, HEA eligibility.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” relating to aid applicants and recipients under title IV of the HEA as follows:
(i) The list of data and documentation maintained in the COD System set forth in purpose (2) is expanded to include alternative documentation of income (ADOI), as an alternative to Federal Tax Information (FTI), used to support the calculation of a monthly payment amount for Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans;
(ii) Purpose (7) is updated to identify an aid recipient who applies to repay or recertifies their eligibility to repay, an eligible lender-held Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL);
(iii) New purpose (13) is added to identify an aid recipient who received a Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) or who earned money under the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program for use in the calculation of the Student Aid Index (SAI) and to assist with expenditure reporting on the Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP);
(v) New purpose (14) is added to enable an aid recipient to complete a Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) application using the “PSLF Help Tool” and to maintain the aid recipient's PSLF qualifying employer's information including, but not limited to, authorizing official's name, title, phone number, email address, and digital signature (including time and date stamp); and
(vi) New purpose (15) is added to identify whether an aid recipient (and where applicable the spouse), who is applying for or recertifies eligibility for an IDR plan has or has not provided consent/affirmative approval both to redisclose Federal Tax Information (FTI) of such individuals pursuant to clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of section 6103(l)(13)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and under subsection 494(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a)) for the purpose of determining eligibility for, or repayment obligations under, IDR plans under title IV of the HEA with respect to loans under part D of the HEA (the Direct Loan program), and redisclosure of FTI under IRC § 6103(l)(13)(A) and (C).
The Department is modifying the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” relating to institutions of higher education (also referred to herein as “educational institutions”) participating in and administering title IV, HEA programs by adding new purpose (7) to allow an institution of higher education to report an aid recipient's receipt of a FSEOG or earnings under the FWS program, which will be used in the SAI calculation and to assist with expenditure reporting on the FISAP.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” relating to the Department's administration and oversight of title IV, HEA programs as follows:
(i) Purpose (9) is being updated to include the implementation and evaluation of education policies in relation to title IV, HEA programs to better clarify the purpose;
New purpose (12) is being added to assist eligible lenders in processing IDR plan requests for eligible aid recipients by providing the calculated monthly payment amounts. The Department is modifying the section entitled “CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM” as follows:
(i) The FWS and the FSEOG Programs are added as new categories (10) and (11), respectively;
(ii) The last phrase in the last paragraph is relocated, with some modifications, to the “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM” to better describe the cohort default rates described therein are categories of records, not individuals, in the system; and
(iii) A new last paragraph is added to include a PSLF qualifying employer's authorizing official who has certified an aid recipient's employment.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM” as follows:
(i) The Department is adding a new note that explains that the FTI the Department will directly obtain from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by
(ii) Category (2) is modified to include the incarcerated student indicator flag and the consent/affirmative approval both to redisclose Federal Tax Information (FTI) of such individuals pursuant to clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of section 6103(l)(13)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and for disclosure under section 494(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a)) to determine eligibility for, or repayment obligations under, IDR plans pursuant to subsection 494(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a));
(iii) Category (4) is modified to include FSEOGs, approved Prison Education programs (PEPs) (the FAFSA Simplification Act allows for expanding access to Federal Pell Grants to include Federal and State penal facilities' approved PEPs), and information about the FWS program, including the amount of FWS amounts and category/type of FWS employment;
(iv) Category (9) is modified to include records related to a request by an applicant for a Federal Direct PLUS Loan for a credit appeal including credit check details, adverse credit history, credit bureau information, and the appeal decision;
(v) Category (10) is modified to include paper or electronic requests to repay, “annual recertification of eligibility for”, “ADOI”, and “IDR monthly payment amount based on the plan selection (as applicable)” to expand the category of records collected;
(vi) New category (15) is being added to include information provided and generated through customer interactions with contact center support via inbound and outbound channels (phone, chat, webform, email, customer satisfaction survey, fax, physical mail, and digital engagement platforms). Information includes, but is not limited to: chat transcripts, email communications, audio recordings of customer calls, and screen recordings of contact center desktop support during customer interactions;
(vii) New category (16) is being added to include borrower defense (BD) information including an uniquely generated internal system case ID, a uniquely generated BD case number for Department, educational institution and student tracking, Office of Postsecondary Education Identification Number (OPEID), and the applicable regulatory year and provision (
(viii) The Department is adding two new paragraphs at the end of the section to explain that the system also contains an aid recipient's PSLF qualifying employer's information (including, but not limited to, authorizing official's name, title, phone number, email address, and digital signature (including time and date stamp)) and NSLDS cohort default rates calculated by the National Student Loan Data system from guaranty agency-reported and Federal Loan Servicer-reported data at the institution level.
The Department is modifying the section “RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES” as follows:
(i) A new fourth paragraph is added to explain the process by which the Department obtains the PSLF qualifying employer's information including, but not limited to, authorizing official name, title, phone number, email address, and digital signature (including time and date stamp), through DocuSign (a secure digital software used by the Department to obtain and document digital signatures) as a service for the aid recipient and the aid recipient's PSLF qualifying employer for the purpose of processing the aid recipient's PSLF application; and
(ii) In the fifth paragraph, category (1) is updated from the Central Processing System (CPS) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Federal Student Aid Application File” (18-11-01)) to the Student Aid internet Gateway (SAIG) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Student Aid internet Gateway (SAIG), Participation Management System” (18-11-10)); category (5), covering the Customer Engagement Management System (CEMS) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Customer Engagement Management System (CEMS)” (18-11-11)), is deleted; new category (6) is added to include the Federal Tax Information Module (FTIM) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “FUTURE Act System (FAS)” (18-11-23)); new category (7) is added to include the Person Authentication Service (PAS) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Person Authentication Service (PAS)” (18-11-12)); and new category (8) is added to include the FAFSA Processing System (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Aid Awareness and Application Processing” (AAAP) (18-11-21)).
The Department is modifying the section entitled “ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES” to add new routine use (1)(l) to enable the Department to disclose records including, but not limited to, monthly payment amounts and ADOIs, to eligible lenders to assist such lenders in processing an aid recipient's IDR plan. The Department is modifying the section entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS” to indicate that the Department maintains Alternative Documentation Of Income (ADOI) and to include paper or electronic requests to repay for Direct Loan or Department-held Perkins or FFEL.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS” to include the BD case number as a why to access a record.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a modified system of records notice to read as follows:
Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System (18-11-02).
Unclassified.
Program Management Services, Federal Student Aid (FSA), Union Center Plaza (UCP), Room 64E1, 830 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20202-5454.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Government Cloud, 1200 12th Ave., Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98114. (This is the Hosting Center for the COD application, where all electronic COD information is processed and maintained.)
Accenture, 22451 Shaw Rd., Sterling, VA 20166-4319. (The COD Sterling Cloud-based operations is located here.)
Accenture DC, 820 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20202-4227. (This is the COD operations center.)
Accenture Federal Services, 10931 Laureate Dr., San Antonio, TX 78249. (This is the COD support center.)
Atlanta Federal Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 4712 Southpark Blvd., Ellenwood, GA 30294. (This is where Direct Loan paper promissory notes (also referred to as master promissory notes or MPNs)), Endorser Addenda, and Power of Attorney documents are maintained.)
NTT Global Data Centers Americas (Raging Wire), 44664 Guilford Dr., Ashburn, VA 20147. (This is a datacenter for contact center technical infrastructure.)
NTT Global Data Centers Americas (Raging Wire), 2008 Lookout Dr., Garland, TX 75044. (This is a datacenter for contact center technical infrastructure.)
The following three listings are the locations of the COD Customer Service Centers:
ASM Research, 4050 Legato Road, #1100, Fairfax, VA 22033. (This center images and maintains all the Direct Loan paper MPNs and Endorser Addenda);
Senture, LLC, 4255 W Highway 90, Monticello, KY 42633-3398; and
Veteran Call Center, 53 Knightsbridge Rd., Suite 216, Piscataway, NJ 08854-3925.
Director, COD System, Program Delivery Services Group, Federal Student Aid (FSA), U.S. Department of Education (Department), Union Center Plaza (UCP), Room 64E1, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5454.
The authority under which the system is maintained is title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070
The information contained in this system is maintained for the following purposes related to aid applicants and recipients under title IV of the HEA:
(1) To determine aid applicants' and recipients' eligibility for and benefits under title IV, HEA programs, including, but not limited to, receiving a loan, grant, or scholarship, and obtaining discharge of eligible loans under title IV of the HEA;
(2) To maintain data and documentation, including, but not limited to, promissory notes and other agreements that evidence the existence of a legal obligation to repay funds disbursed under title IV, HEA programs and alternative documentation of income (ADOI) used to support the calculation of a monthly payment amount IDR plans;
(3) To identify whether an aid recipient may have received title IV, HEA program funds at more than one educational institution for the same enrollment period in violation of title IV, HEA program regulations;
(4) To identify whether an aid recipient may have exceeded title IV, HEA program fund award limits in violation of title IV, HEA program regulations;
(5) To identify an aid applicant or recipient who completed an electronic Direct Consolidation Loan Application and promissory note or a Special Direct Consolidation Loan application and promissory note;
(6) To identify an aid applicant or recipient who completed entrance and exit counseling in the Direct Loan or Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant programs;
(7) To identify an aid recipient who apply to repay, or recertifies their eligibility to repay, a Direct Loan, a Department-held Perkins loan, a Department- or an eligible lender-held Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loan under an IDR plan;
(8) To track student enrollments by educational program for purposes of determining educational program outcomes, including using that information to obtain average earnings of students by educational program from another Federal agency;
(9) To maintain a qualifying employer database to allow aid recipients who apply for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (TEPSLF), or the limited PSLF waiver to search for and select their PSLF qualifying employer;
(10) To enable the Department, or other Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agencies, to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints concerning the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors, and to investigate, respond to, or resolve aid applicant and recipient requests for assistance or relief regarding title IV, HEA program funds;
(11) To enable an aid applicant, recipient, and, where applicable, an endorser, to initiate online credit checks when they complete the electronic Federal Direct PLUS Loan Application or an Endorser Addendum (
(12) To identify an aid recipient obligated to repay title IV, HEA program funds pursuant to various maintained data and documentation such as promissory notes, applications, and agreements;
(13) To identify an aid recipient who received a Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) or who earned money under the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program for use in the calculation of the Student Aid Index (SAI) and to assist with expenditure reporting on the Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP);
(14) To enable an aid recipient to complete a PSLF application using the “PSLF Help Tool” and to maintain the aid recipient's PSLF qualifying employer's information including, but not limited to, authorizing official's name, title, phone number, email address, and digital signature (including time and date stamp); and
(15) To identify whether an aid recipient (and where applicable the spouse) who is applying or recertifies eligibility for an IDR plan has or has not provided consent/affirmative approval both to redisclose Federal Tax Information (FTI) of such individuals pursuant to clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of section 6103(l)(13)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and under subsection 494 (a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a)) for the purpose of determining eligibility for, or repayment obligations under, IDR plans under title IV of the HEA with respect to loans under part D of the HEA (the Direct Loan Program), and redisclosure of FTI under IRC § 6103(l)(13)(A) and (C).
The information in this system is also maintained for the following purposes relating to institutions of higher education (also referred to herein as “educational institutions”) participating in and administering title IV, HEA programs:
(1) To enable an institution of higher education to reconcile, on an aggregate and recipient-level basis, the amount of title IV, HEA program funds that an institution received for disbursements it made to, or on behalf of, eligible students (including reconciling verification codes, reconciling the funds received with disbursements made by type of funds received, and making necessary adjustments);
(2) To enable an institution of higher education to request online credit checks on an aid applicant, recipient, or endorser in connection with the determination of the aid applicant's eligibility for a title IV, HEA Federal Direct PLUS Loan;
(3) To assist an institution of higher education, a software vendor, or a third-party servicer with questions about title IV, HEA program funds;
(4) To assist an institution of higher education with student loan default prevention;
(5) To reconcile an institution of higher education's cash drawdowns from the U.S. Department of the Treasury with its reported disbursements and to ensure that the institution of higher education receives the appropriate amount of funds during the respective time period;
(6) To collect Campus-Based expenditure information for the previous award year and the ability to apply for Campus-Based program funds using the FISAP;
(7) To enable an institution of higher education to report an aid recipient's receipt of a FSEOG or earnings under the FWS program, which will be used in the SAI calculation and to assist with expenditure reporting on the FISAP.
The information in this system is also maintained for the following purposes relating to the Department's administration and oversight of title IV, HEA programs:
(1) To support the investigation of possible fraud and abuse and to detect and prevent fraud and abuse in title IV, HEA programs;
(2) To confirm that an institution of higher education, or a program offered by an institution of higher education, is eligible to receive title IV, HEA program funds, and to limit student aid eligibility for ineligible institutions or programs accordingly;
(3) To set and adjust program funding authorization levels for each institution;
(4) To enforce institutional compliance with Department reporting deadlines;
(5) To apply appropriate title IV, HEA funding controls;
(6) To ensure that Federal, State, local, and Tribal statutory, regulatory, contractual, and program requirements are met by educational and financial institutions, and the Department's contractors including Federal Loan Servicers and the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer;
(7) To help governmental entities at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels to exercise their supervisory and administrative powers (including, but not limited to, licensure, examination, discipline, regulation, or oversight of educational institutions, Department contractors, guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, and third-party servicers); to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints regarding the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors; and to update information or correct errors contained in Department records regarding title IV, HEA program funds;
(8) To provide reporting capabilities for educational institutions, guaranty agencies, lenders, Department contractors including Federal Loan Servicers, and the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer for use in title IV, HEA administrative functions, and for use by the Department or Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies for oversight and compliance;
(9) To support research, analysis, and development, and the implementation and evaluation of educational policies in relation to title IV, HEA programs;
(10) To support the Department in detecting and mitigating improper payments in title IV, HEA programs;
(11) To conduct testing, analysis, or take other administrative actions needed to prepare for or execute programs under title IV of the HEA; and
(12) To assist eligible lenders in processing IDR plan requests for eligible aid recipients by providing the calculated monthly payment amounts.
This system contains records of aid applicants, aid applicants' parents, spouses of aid applicants, and where applicable, endorsers, who apply for title IV, HEA programs including, but not limited to, the:
(1) Federal Pell Grant Program;
(2) Federal Perkins Loans Program;
(3) Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program;
(4) National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant Program;
(5) TEACH Grant Program;
(6) Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant (IASG) Program;
(7) Direct Loan Program, which includes Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans, Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford/Ford Loans, Federal Direct PLUS Loans, and Federal Direct Consolidation Loans;
(8) FFEL Program;
(9) Federal Insured Student Loan (FISL) Program;
(10) FWS Program; and
(11) FSEOG Program.
The COD System also contains records of aid recipients under title IV of the HEA, parents of dependent aid applicants or recipients and the spouse of independent applicant or recipient. The COD System also maintains records on a PSLF qualifying employer's authorizing official who has certified an aid recipient's employment.
Records in the COD System include, but are not limited to, the following data about aid applicants and recipients, endorsers, aid applicants' and recipients' parents, and spouses of aid applicants and recipients who are part of an aid applicant's title IV, HEA aid application or receive title IV, HEA aid:
(1) Identifier information, including name, Social Security number (SSN), date of birth (DOB), mailing address, email address, driver's license number, and telephone number;
(2) Aid applicant and recipient demographic information, including demographic information of the aid applicant's and recipient's parent(s) and aid applicant's and recipient's spouse (if applicable), incarcerated student indicator flag, expected student enrollment, list of participating title IV, HEA institutions of higher education designated by the aid applicant to receive the Free Application For Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) form data along with residency plans, and the financial profile of an aid applicant, an aid applicant's parent(s), or an aid applicant's spouse, as reported and calculated through the FAFSA form, and to also include processing flags, indicators, rejections, and overrides; and the consent/affirmative approval to disclose personally identifiable information to the IRS and to obtain FTI in order to determine eligibility for, or repayment obligations under, IDR plans pursuant to subsection 494 (a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a));
(3) Aid recipient's loan information including information about Direct Loans, FFEL program loans, Perkins loans, and FISL program loans. This includes information about the period from the origination of the loan through final payment, and milestones, including, but not limited to: discharge, consolidation, or other final disposition including details such as loan amount, date of disbursement, disbursement amounts, balances, loan status, repayment plan and related information, collections, claims, deferments, forbearances, refunds, and guaranty agencies, lender(s), holder(s), and servicer(s) of an aid recipient's FFEL program loan(s);
(4) Information about Federal grant aid recipients, including recipients of Pell Grants, ACG, National SMART Grants, TEACH Grants, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants, and FSEOGs, including grant amounts, grant awards, verification status, lifetime eligibility used (LEU), IASG eligible veteran's dependent indicator, Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship eligibility indicator, Pell Grant additional eligibility indicator, approved Prison Education programs (PEPs) (the FAFSA Simplification Act allows for expanding access to Federal Pell Grants to include Federal and State penal facilities' approved PEPS; and information about the FWS program, including the amount of FWS earnings and category/type of FWS employment;
(5) Pell Grant collection status indicator and overpayment collection information;
(6) Promissory notes including promissory note identification numbers, loan type, current servicer, principal balance, and the accrued interest for Direct Loans, Federal Direct PLUS Loans, or Department-held FFEL program loans;
(7) TEACH Agreements to Serve;
(8) Direct Loan Entrance Counseling forms, Federal Student Loan Exit Counseling forms, Federal Direct PLUS Loan Counseling forms, the Annual School Loan Acknowledgement (ASLA), Federal Direct PLUS Loan Requests, endorser addendums, and counseling in the Direct Loan and TEACH Grant programs, such as the date that the aid applicant completed counseling;
(9) Credit report information for Federal Direct PLUS Loan applicants, recipients, and endorsers and if applicable, documents related to a Federal Direct PLUS Loan applicant's request for a credit appeal including credit check details, adverse credit history, credit bureau information, and applicant provided appeal support documentation and the Department's appeal decision,
(10) Aid applicant, endorser, or spouse identifier information for a paper or electronic request to repay or annual recertification of an Direct Loan or Department-held Perkins or FFEL loans or annual recertification of eligibility for, an IDR plan, such as SSN; the date that the IDR plan application was completed; ADOI; IDR monthly payment amount based on the plan selection (as applicable); and current loan balances;
(11) Electronic Direct Consolidation Loan or Special Direct Consolidation Loan aid recipient identifier information, such as the aid recipient's SSN, the date that the aid recipient completed the Federal Direct Consolidation Loan application and promissory note, and current loan balances;
(12) Information concerning the date of any default on a loan;
(13) Demographic and contact information for aid recipient accounts that the Department places with the Federal Loan Servicer(s) for collection of the aid recipient's title IV, HEA loans;
(14) Information obtained pursuant to matching programs or other information exchanges with Federal and State agencies, and other external entities, to assist in identifying aid recipients who may be eligible for benefits related to their title IV, HEA loans or other title IV, HEA obligations, including, but not limited to, Total and Permanent Disability discharges, loan deferments, interest rate reductions, PSLF, and other Federal and State loan repayment, discharge benefits, or for the purpose of recouping payments or delinquent debts under title IV, HEA programs;
(15) Information provided and generated through customer interactions with contact center support via inbound and outbound channels (phone, chat, webform, email, customer satisfaction survey, fax, physical mail, and digital engagement platforms). Information includes, but is not limited to: chat transcripts, email communications, audio recordings of customer calls, and screen recordings of contact center desktop support during customer interactions; and
(16) Borrower defense (BD) information including a uniquely generated internal system case ID, a uniquely generated BD case number for Department, educational institution and student tracking, Office of Postsecondary Education Identification Number (OPEID), and the applicable regulatory year and provisions (
The system also contains the following data about students provided by institutions of higher education that participate in an experiment under the Experimental Sites Initiative: award year, experiment number, OPEID, student SSN, student last name, and any data collection instrument elements authorized under the Information Collection Request associated with each experiment.
The system also contains records from 2014-2021 on the level of study, Classification of Instructional Program code (field of study), and published length of an educational program in which a student receiving title IV, HEA
The system also contains an aid recipient's PSLF qualifying employer's information including, but not limited to, authorizing official's name, title, phone number, email address, and digital signature (including time and date stamp).
Finally, the system maintains cohort default rates (CDRs) calculated by the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) from guaranty agency-reported and Federal Loan Servicer-reported data at the institution level.
This system includes records obtained from aid applicants and recipients, aid applicants' and recipients' parents, and spouses of aid applicants and recipients who are part of an applicant's or recipient's title IV, HEA aid application, or who have received title IV, HEA program assistance. These records include information provided by applicants for and recipients of title IV, HEA program assistance, via, for example, Federal Direct Consolidation Loan or Special Direct Loan Consolidation application forms and promissory notes, the parents of dependent aid applicants and recipients, and the spouses of aid applicants and recipients who request to repay a Direct Loan, or recertifies their eligibility for, an IDR plan.
This system also includes Federal grant and Direct Loan origination and disbursement records provided to the Department by institutions of higher education or their agents. The system also receives completion information for Direct Loan and TEACH Grant program counseling through
The system also receives information on Federal Direct PLUS Loan applicants, recipients, and endorsers from consumer reporting agencies.
Information is also obtained from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, guaranty agencies, consumer reporting agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions, servicers.
Information is also obtained about a PSLF qualifying employer through DocuSign (a secure digital software used by the Department to obtain and document digital signatures). The process through which the Department obtains the information using DocuSign is as follows:
(1) The aid recipient completes the PSLF application via the “Helptool,” which includes the employer's name and email address;
(2) The Department sends the information to DocuSign; and DocuSign sends an email to the employer, which includes a randomly generated code;
(3) If the employer does not opt out, the employer logs in to DocuSign with the randomly generated code to ensure the employer is accessing the correct recipient certification in DocuSign;
(4) The employer certifies the aid recipient's employment, provides the employer's authorizing official's name, title, email address, and phone number, and electronically signs the PSLF certification; and
DocuSign returns to the Department the PSLF qualifying employer's information. Information is also obtained from other Department systems, including the following systems, or their successor systems:
(a) The Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) system of records notice entitled “Student Aid Internet Gateway, Participant Management System” (18-11-10));
(b) The National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) system of records notice entitled “National Student Loan Data System” (18-11-06));
(c) The Financial Management System (FMS) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Financial Management System (FMS)” (18-11-17));
(d) The Postsecondary Education Participants System (PEPS) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Postsecondary Education Participants System (PEPS)” (18-11-09));
(e) The Common Services for Borrowers (CSB) system (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Common Services for Borrowers (CSB)” (18-11-16);
(f) The Federal Tax Information Module (FTIM) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “FUTURE Act System (FAS)” (18-11-23));
(g) The Person Authentication Service (PAS) (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Person Authentication Service (PAS)” (18-11-12)); and
(h) The FAFSA Processing System (covered by the Department's Privacy Act system of records notice entitled “Aid Awareness and Application Processing (AAAP”) (18-11-21)).
The system may also obtain information from other persons or entities from which data is obtained following a disclosure under the routine uses set forth below.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. The Department may make these disclosures on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act, under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(a) To assist with the determination of program eligibility and benefits, the Department may disclose records to institutions of higher education, financial institutions, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies;
(b) To maintain data that supports the existence of a legal obligation to repay funds disbursed under title IV, HEA programs, including documentation such as promissory notes and other agreements, the Department may disclose records to institutions of higher education, third-party servicers, and Federal agencies;
(c) To identify whether an aid recipient may have received title IV, HEA program funds at more than one institution of higher education for the same enrollment period in violation of title IV, HEA regulations, the Department may disclose records to institutions of higher education, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, or local agencies;
(d) To identify whether an aid recipient may have exceeded the award limits under title IV, HEA program funds in violation of title IV, HEA regulations, the Department may disclose records to institutions of higher education, third-party servicers, and Federal agencies;
(e) To enable institutions of higher education to reconcile, on an aggregate
(f) To enable an institution of higher education to request online credit checks of aid applicants, aid recipients, or endorsers as part of the process for determining the eligibility of aid applicants and recipients for a title IV, HEA Federal Direct PLUS Loan, disclosures may be made to institutions of higher education, third-party servicers, consumer reporting agencies, and Federal agencies;
(g) To assist individuals, institutions of higher education, third-party servicers, or software vendors with questions about title IV, HEA program funds, disclosures may be made to institutions of higher education, software vendors, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, or local agencies;
(h) To support the investigation of possible fraud and abuse and to detect and prevent fraud and abuse in title IV, HEA program funds, disclosures may be made to institutions of higher education, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, local, or Tribal agencies;
(i) To assist institutions of higher education with student loan default prevention, disclosures may be made to institutions of higher education as to whether an aid applicant or recipient has completed required counseling in the Direct Loan or TEACH Grant programs;
(j) To assist the Department in determining eligibility for a Federal Direct PLUS Loan, disclosures may be made to consumer reporting agencies;
(k) To help Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental entities exercise their supervisory and administrative powers (including, but not limited to licensure, examination, discipline, regulation, or oversight of educational institutions, Department contractors, guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, and third-party servicers) or to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints submitted regarding the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors, the Department may disclose records to governmental entities at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels. These records may include all aspects of records relating to loans and grants made under title IV of the HEA, to permit these governmental entities to verify compliance with debt collection, consumer protection, financial, and other applicable statutory, regulatory, or local requirements. Before making a disclosure to these Federal, State, local, or Tribal governmental entities, the Department will require them to maintain safeguards consistent with the Privacy Act to protect the security and confidentiality of the disclosed records;
(l) To assist an eligible lender in processing an aid recipient's IDR plan, the Department may disclose records, including, but not limited to, the calculated monthly payment amount based on the IDR plan selected and ADOIs, to eligible lenders.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components;
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been requested to or has agreed to provide or arrange for representation of the employee;
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity when the Department has agreed to represent the employee; and
(v) The United States when the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): The Department may disclose to a consumer reporting agency the following information regarding a valid, overdue claim of the Department:
(1) The name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual responsible for the claim;
(2) The amount, status, and history of the claim; and
(3) The program under which the claim arose.
The Department may disclose the information specified in this section under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and the procedures contained in 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). A consumer reporting agency to which these disclosures may be made is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) and 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
The Department electronically maintains, for the entire Federal Student Aid lifecycle from application through loan payoff, student and applicant demographic, and title IV, HEA aid data such as, but not limited to, FFEL program, FISL program, and Perkins loan records, on hard disk at the AWS Government Cloud in Seattle, Washington. The Department maintains electronic master promissory notes, electronic Special Direct Consolidation Loan opportunity applications and promissory notes, paper or electronic requests to repay or a recertification a Direct Loan or Department-held Perkins or FFEL under an IDR plan, and Federal Direct Consolidation Loan applications, ADOIs, and promissory notes on hard disk at the AWS Government Cloud in Seattle, Washington. Paper Direct Loan promissory notes and endorser addendums are maintained in locked vaults in ASM Research in Niagara Falls, New York, and at the NARA- operated Atlanta Federal Records Center near Atlanta, Georgia. Data obtained from the paper promissory notes are maintained on hard disks at the AWS Government Cloud in Seattle, Washington. This data is referred to as metadata and is used by the system to link promissory notes to aid recipient data. The Department also creates and maintains electronic images of the paper promissory notes at the ASM Research facility in Niagara Falls, New York. For information on the maintenance of other documents, see the section entitled “SYSTEM LOCATION.”
Records in the COD System are retrieved by the individual's SSN or name, BD case number, or by the institution's OPEID.
All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with Department Records Schedule 072: FSA Application, Origination, and Disbursement Records (DAA-0441-2013-0002) (ED 072). ED 072 is being amended, pending approval by NARA. Records will not be destroyed until NARA-approved amendments to ED 072 are in effect, as applicable.
Physical access to the sites of the Department's contractors, where this system of records is maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the buildings for their employee or visitor badge.
In accordance with the Department's Administrative Communications System Directive ACSD-OFO-013 entitled “Contractor Employee Personnel Security Screenings,” all contract and Department personnel who have facility access and system access must undergo a security clearance investigation. Individuals requiring access to Privacy Act data are required to hold, at a minimum, a moderate-risk security clearance level. These individuals are required to undergo periodic screening at five-year intervals.
In addition to undergoing security clearances, contract and Department employees are required to complete security awareness training on an annual basis. Annual security awareness training is required to ensure that contract and Department users are appropriately trained in safeguarding Privacy Act data.
The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a “need-to-know” basis and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system. All users of this system of records are given unique user identification. The Department's FSA Information Security and Privacy Policy requires the enforcement of a complex password policy. In addition to the enforcement of the complex password policy, users are required to change their password at least every 90 days in accordance with the Department's information technology standards.
In accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), as amended by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, every Department system must receive a signed Authorization to Operate (ATO) from a designated Department official. The ATO process includes a rigorous assessment of security and privacy controls, a plan of actions and milestones to remediate any identified deficiencies, and a continuous monitoring program.
Security and privacy controls implemented are comprised of a combination of management, operational, and technical controls, and include the following control families: access control, awareness and training, audit and accountability, security assessment and authorization, configuration management, contingency planning, identification and authentication, incident response, maintenance, media protection, physical and environmental protection, planning, personnel security, privacy, risk assessment, system and services acquisition, system and communications protection, system and information integrity, and program management.
If you wish to gain access to a record in this system, contact the system manager at the address listed above. You must provide necessary particulars of your name, DOB, SSN, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request to distinguish between individuals with the same name.
Requests by an individual for access to a record must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 5b.5.
If you wish to contest the content of your personal record within the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed above and provide your name, DOB, and SSN. Identify the specific items to be changed and provide a written justification for the change.
Requests to amend a record must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed above. You must provide necessary particulars such as your name, DOB, SSN, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Requests must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 5b.5.
None.
The system of records entitled “Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System” (18-11-02) was last modified and published in full in the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 28, 2023.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Heidi Gansen, 202-245-6765.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest is developing a toolkit based on the Using Technology to Support Postsecondary Student Learning What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Practice Guide to support student learning in community college contexts. Community college instructors, across all disciplines, including those who teach in person, hybrid (remote and in person), and online courses, are the primary audience for the Toolkit.
This toolkit's efficacy evaluation will collect information about the professional learning resources, organized as the eAcademy: Professional Learning for Using Technology to Enhance Learning, that will comprise the main component of the Toolkit. In the efficacy study, the eAcademy will be offered to instructors in community colleges in Oregon. The evaluation of the eAcademy includes two parts: first, using a random assignment design, researchers will examine the impact of the eAcademy on instructor knowledge, teaching practices, and student outcomes. Second, researchers will collect implementation data to understand fidelity of implementation, treatment contrast, and how the eAcademy influences instructor and student outcomes.
The research questions include: What is the impact of the eAcademy on instructors' awareness of technology tools for learning, knowledge of how to use technology for learning, and comfort using education technologies to support student learning, what is the impact of the eAcademy on instructors' use of technology to support student learning, and what is the impact of the eAcademy on student engagement, interaction, course completion, and persistence to the next quarter?
The goals of the program evaluation include documenting the content of eAcademy (topics covered and activities provided), the way the eAcademy is implemented, and the treatment dosage to understand fidelity of implementation. The evaluation study will provide further insight into how the eAcademy is related to instructor- and student-level outcomes, and the implementation study will document treatment contrast between the eAcademy and other available professional resources. eAcademy participation data will be used to affirm whether instructors in the treatment group accessed the professional resources and instructors in the control group did not.
Findings from the implementation study may be used to improve future iterations of the eAcademy and to update the WWC Practice Guide recommendations. They may also generate ideas for new approaches to professional development that lead to better outcomes.
Take notice that on June 15, 2023, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley), requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time until June 18, 2026, to complete construction of the MVP Southgate Project (Southgate Project) and place the Southgate Project facilities into service, as authorized in the June 18, 2020 Order Issuing Certificate (Certificate Order),
On June 24, 2022, Mountain Valley filed a motion requesting a four-year extension of time, until October 13, 2026, to construct and place into service the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (Mainline System) and the Greene
Mountain Valley states that construction and completion of the Mainline System has been delayed due to persistent litigation and resultant repetitive permitting processes. The Southgate Project has experienced its own permitting delays, some of which is directly tied to Mainline System permitting.
Mountain Valley asserts that even if the Southgate Project had all of its permits, the Mainline System permitting delays would have prevented Mountain Valley from commencing construction of the Southgate Project under the terms of the Certificate Order. In its request Mountain Valley avers that the circumstances have changed because President Biden signed legislation that will expedite the completion of the Mainline System.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Mountain Valley's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Star Light and Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 12, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Electra Sparks, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 12, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Wildflower Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 12, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) is currently seeking candidates (candidates must not currently be Federal employees) to serve as a non-Federal member of FASAB. FASAB is the body designated to establish generally accepted accounting principles for Federal Government entities. Generally, non-Federal Board members are selected from the general financial community, the accounting and auditing community, or the academic community. The Board generally meets for two days every other month in Washington, DC. Members are compensated for 24 days per year based on current Federal executive salaries. Travel expenses are reimbursed in accordance with federal travel regulations.
Please submit your resume by August 27, 2023.
Responses may be sent to
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 28, 2023. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Pursuant to the
The Commission reduced the accounting requirements for telephone companies with a continuing obligation to comply with Part 32 in a number of areas. Telephone companies may: (1) Carry an asset at its purchase price when it was acquired, even if its value has increased or declined when it goes into regulated service; (2) reprice an asset at market value after a merger or acquisition consistent with GAAP; (3) use GAAP principles to determine Allowance-for-Funds-Used-During Construction; and (4) employ the GAAP standard of materiality. Rate-of-return carriers receiving cost-based support must determine materiality consistent with the general materiality guidelines promulgated by the Auditing Standards Board. Price cap carriers with a continuing Part 32 accounting obligation must maintain continuing property records necessary to track substantial assets and investments in an accurate, auditable manner. The carriers must make such property information available to the Commission upon request. Carriers subject to Part 32 must continue to comply with the USOA's depreciation procedures and its rules for cost of removal-and-salvage accounting.
Pursuant to the October 24, 2018
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before July 28, 2023.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Upon Adoption of the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, this submission was sent to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the
First, to improve the NCE comparative process, the NCE LPFM Report and Order: (1) Eliminated the governing document requirements for established local applicants and applicants claiming diversity points; (2) established a uniform divestiture pledge policy; (3) expanded the tie-breaker criteria and revises the procedures for allocating time in mandatory time-sharing situations; and (4) clarified and modified the “holding period” rule.
Second, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopted the following changes to the LPFM comparative process: (1) Prohibited amendments that attempt to cure past unauthorized station violations; (2) authorized time-sharing discussions prior to tentative selectee designations; and (3) established procedures for remaining tentative selectees following dismissal of point aggregation time-share agreements.
Third, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopted the following general changes: (1) Defined which applicant board changes are major changes; (2) clarified the reasonable site assurance requirements; (3) streamlined construction deadline tolling procedures and notification requirements; (4) lengthened the LPFM construction period; and (5) eliminated restrictions on the assignment and transfer of LPFM authorizations.
Specifically, pertaining to this Information Collection and NCE and LPFM stations, the Commission removed the restrictive LPFM station three-year “holding period” certification from CDBS Forms 314 and 315, and revised the relevant rules, 47 CFR 73.865 and 73.7005, the forms, and corresponding instructions, as follows:
(1) Changed all references to “holding period” to “maintenance of comparative qualifications,” and requiring NCE stations awarded by the point system to certify satisfying the four-year “maintenance of comparative qualifications” period;
(2) required LPFM applicants to certify that it has been at least 18 months since the station's initial construction permit was granted in accordance with 47 CFR 73.865(c);
(3) required LPFM applicants to certify that the assignment/transfer of the LPFM authorization satisfies the consideration restrictions of 47 CFR 73.865(a)(1);
(4) required LPFM authorizations awarded by the LPFM comparative point system, to indicate whether the LPFM station has operated on-air for at least four years since grant;
(5) required NCE applicants to certify that the proposed acquisition comports with 47 CFR 73.7005(c) diversity requirements, based on any “diversity of ownership” points awarded in an NCE points system analysis.
Moreover, the NCE LPFM Report and Order will increase the number of applicants eligible to file Schedules 314 and 315 by eliminating both the absolute prohibition on the assignment/transfer of LPFM construction permits and the three-year holding period restriction on assigning LPFM licenses. The elimination of these restrictions will benefit the LPFM service by increasing the likelihood that LPFM permits will be constructed, provide new service to communities, and help make the LPFM stations more viable.
Upon adoption, the Commission, submitted to OMB for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (adopted May 12, 2020, rel. May 13, 2020) (2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including commercial stations filing assignment and transfer applications, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations, including those filing assignment and transfer applications, that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing.
The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (“Act”) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and of the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR 238.31) to acquire shares of a savings and loan holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than July 13, 2023.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of public meeting.
AHRQ coordinates the development of sets of standardized definitions and formats (Common Formats) that make it possible to collect, aggregate, and analyze uniformly structured information about health care quality and patient safety for local, regional, and national learning. The Common Formats include technical specifications to facilitate the collection of electronically comparable data by Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs) and other entities. Additional information about the Common Formats can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website at
The meeting will be held from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, July 20, 2023.
The meeting will be held virtually.
Dr. Hamid Jalal, Medical Officer, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to 299b-26 (Patient Safety Act), and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety Act requires PSOs, to the extent practical and appropriate, to collect patient safety work product from providers in a standardized manner that permits valid comparisons of similar cases among similar providers. (42 U.S.C. 299b-24(b)(1)(F)). The Patient Safety Act also authorizes the development of data standards, known as the Common Formats, to facilitate the aggregation and analysis of non-identifiable patient safety data collected by PSOs and reported to the network of patient safety databases (NPSD). (42 U.S.C. 299b-23(b)). The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule can be accessed at:
AHRQ has issued Common Formats for Event Reporting (CFER) for three settings of care—hospitals, nursing homes, and community pharmacies. AHRQ has also issued Common Formats for Event Reporting—Diagnostic Safety (CFER-DS) designed for use in all healthcare settings.
Federally listed PSOs can meet the requirement to collect patient safety work product in a standardized manner to the extent practical and appropriate by using AHRQ's Common Formats. The Common Formats are also available in the public domain to encourage their widespread adoption. An entity does not need to be listed as a PSO or working with one to use the Common Formats. However, the Federal privilege and confidentiality protections only apply to information developed as patient safety work product by providers and PSOs working under the Patient Safety Act.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) will be hosting this fully virtual meeting to discuss
AHRQ requests that interested persons send an email to
Office of Child Care; Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting an extension without changes of the form ACF-118: Child Care and Development Fund Plan Preprint for States/Territories for FFY 2022-2024 (OMB #0970-0114, expiration 02/29/2024), and an additional 3-year extension of the form ACF-118: Child Care and Development Fund Plan Preprint for States/Territories for FFY 2025-2027. There are changes requested to the form ACF-118: Child Care and Development Fund Plan Preprint for States/Territories for FFY 2025-2027 to improve formatting, collect additional information about program implementation, and streamline questions.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
At this time, the ACF Office of Child Care (OCC) is proposing an extension of the approval of the currently approved CCDF Plan Preprint for FFY 2022-2024 to allow states and territories to continue to submit amendments through September 30, 2024, as required. There are no changes proposed to the FFY 2022-2024 Plan Preprint. In addition, OCC is requesting comments on the proposed CCDF Plan Preprint for FFY 2025-2027. Updates were made to clarify questions, enhance the ability to align data with OCC monitoring data, reflect equity and other OCC priorities, ensure alignment with federal requirements, and facilitate grantee submission in the Child Care Automated Reporting System (CARS) data system.
Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Other than the JCAMP Feedback Survey, all other instruments will be used for jurisdiction program and practice improvements.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by July 28, 2023.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Agency regulations found in 21 CFR part 1, subparts D (21 CFR 1.70 through 1.81) and E (21 CFR 1.83 through 1.101), governing FDA import activities and related Agency guidance. Specifically, the regulations prescribe the required data elements that respondents must submit when importing, or offering for import, an FDA-regulated article into the United States. Review of the data elements allows FDA to continue to meet its responsibilities pertaining to current submission requirements established by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) related to the submission of entry information in using its Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system, or any CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. The regulations were recently revised through rulemaking to include data elements associated with import entries for veterinary devices (RIN 0910-AH66).
Respondents (ACE filers) submit important and useful information about FDA-regulated products being imported or offered for import into the United States so that we may effectively and efficiently review products and determine their admissibility. In addition, and as set forth in the regulations, certain product types are subject to additional data elements (for example, 21 CFR 1.77 prescribes additional data elements for radiation-emitting products), as well as those data elements applicable to all products.
The information collection also includes our weekly entry filing program (WEF). More detailed information on Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ)/WEF, is available at
The information collection also includes our Import Trade Auxiliary Communication System (ITACS). ITACS is used by the import trade community and was implemented to improve communication with FDA. By utilizing ITACS, respondents to the information collection have the ability to establish an account and electronically check the status of FDA-regulated entries and lines, submit entry documentation, submit the location of goods availability for those lines targeted for examination by FDA, and check the estimated laboratory analysis completion dates for lines that have been sampled. For further information regarding ITACS, please visit our website at
The information collection also includes burden associated with the use of Form FDA 766 entitled “Application for Authorization to Relabel or Recondition Non-compliant Articles” as the collection instrument for 21 CFR 1.95. Form FDA 766 facilitates collection of information associated with certain general enforcement provisions for importing FDA-regulated articles into the United States. The form is available at
Relatedly, we are revising the information collection to include burden associated with the use of proposed electronic Form FDA 5054
Finally, the information collection includes burden associated with recommendations found in the procedural Agency guidance entitled “Pre-Launch Activities Importation Requests (PLAIR),” (March 2022). Historically, when applicants with a pending new drug application, abbreviated new drug application, or Center for Drug Evaluation and Research-regulated biologics licensing application (information collection associated with these submissions is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0001) sought to import unapproved finished dosage form drug products into the United States in preparation for market launch, we considered such requests, informally referred to as “PLAIRs,” on a case-by-case basis. Since implementing the PLAIR program in 2013, interest continues to increase, so we have developed a more formalized process as discussed in the guidance. The guidance is available at
In the
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
Table 1, rows 1 and 2, reflects annual average filing submissions through December 31, 2022. An IOR may be the owner or purchaser of the article being imported or offered for import, or a customs broker licensed by CBP under 19 U.S.C. 1641 who has been designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee to file the import entry. There is only one IOR per entry.
As reflected in table 1, row 3, we estimate 10 respondents will submit WEFs. Persons wishing to file weekly entries of FDA-regulated products are encouraged to provide the information identified so that FDA can conduct a preliminary admissibility assessment of the associated products and firms. This submission typically contains the information FDA requests for multiple products (
As reflected in table 1, row 4, we estimate that 500 new ITACS accounts will be created annually. Since developing and implementing ITACS, we have adjusted this estimate downward to reflect the transition from initial program interest to average annual maintenance-level numbers.
As reflected in table 1, row 5, we estimate the submission of 324 Forms FDA 766 in conjunction with FDA-regulated products. This figure is based on Agency import data and our experience with the information collection. We assume it takes respondents 15 minutes to complete and
Based on inquiries already received and processed by FDA, we anticipate 1,000 respondents will annually submit Form 5054 pertaining to general drug import information, as reflected in table 1, row 6.
As shown in table 1, row 7, we estimate 80 respondents to the PLAIR program annually, an increase of 10 since our last evaluation of the information collection. At the same time, we estimate one fewer submission per respondent to correspond with a decrease in submissions received by FDA.
Cumulatively these changes and adjustments result in an increase of 3,067,493 responses and 161,161 hours annually.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Promotional Labeling and Advertisements.” This guidance provides recommendations for presenting quantitative efficacy and risk information in DTC promotional labeling and advertisements for prescription human drug and biological products and prescription animal drugs and in DTC promotional labeling for over-the-counter (OTC) animal drugs (collectively, “promotional communications”). FDA is issuing this guidance to describe the Agency's recommendations for how manufacturers, distributors, and packers (collectively, “firms”) that include quantitative efficacy or risk information about their drugs in DTC promotional communications can make the language and presentation more consumer-friendly. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title issued in October 2018.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
Christine Bradshaw, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3203, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1200,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Promotional Labeling and Advertisements.” This guidance describes recommendations for how firms including quantitative efficacy or risk information about their drugs
When describing efficacy and risk information about a drug in promotional communications, firms generally have flexibility regarding how they present this information as long as the presentation is not false or misleading and complies with other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. FDA understands that firms may experience challenges when determining how to present quantitative efficacy or risk information in their DTC promotional communications so that consumers have an opportunity to attend to, understand, and use the information to form accurate perceptions about their drugs. Therefore, FDA is issuing this guidance to provide recommendations for presenting quantitative efficacy and risk information in DTC promotional communications and to encourage firms to follow these recommendations when including such information in their DTC promotional communications.
The guidance covers the following topics for presenting quantitative efficacy and risk information in DTC promotional communications, based on current research findings related to communicating health information:
• Providing quantitative efficacy or risk information for the control group, when applicable;
• Presenting probability information in terms of absolute frequencies, percentages, and relative frequencies;
• Formatting quantitative efficacy or risk information; and
• Using visual aids to illustrate quantitative efficacy or risk information.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer Promotional Labeling and Advertisements” issued on October 17, 2018 (83 FR 52484). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include clarifying considerations for quantitative efficacy or risk presentations across various media types and providing additional explanations regarding specific concepts and examples that were included in the draft guidance. In addition, editorial and organizational changes were made to improve clarity.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer Promotional Labeling and Advertisements.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance document recommends information collection activity subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Burden that may be attributable to recommendations for presenting quantitative efficacy and risk information in direct-to-consumer promotional labeling and advertisements as discussed in Section III of the guidance document is approved under OMB control number 0910-0686. The guidance document also refers to previously approved FDA collections of information. The collections of information in 21 CFR 202.1 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0686.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Patient-Matched Guides to Orthopedic Implants.” This draft guidance document provides recommendations regarding information that should be included in regulatory submissions for patient-matched guides to orthopedic implants. This draft guidance also provides recommendations that manufacturers should consider when developing their design process for these device types.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 28, 2023 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Michel Janda, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4428, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6395.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Patient-Matched Guides to Orthopedic Implants.” FDA has developed this guidance document for members of industry who submit and FDA staff who review premarket submissions for patient-matched guides for orthopedic implants. Patient-matched guides are intended to assist in the execution of a pre-surgical plan concurred upon by the patient's healthcare professional to position an orthopedic implant in a way consistent with the implant's indicated use. This draft guidance is intended to promote clarity and transparency as to expectations regarding submission recommendations for orthopedic patient-matched guides. Following such recommendations may increase efficiency and consistency in review. Additionally, this draft guidance provides recommended best practices regarding certain elements of the design process.
This draft guidance was part of the 2015 initiative to incorporate stakeholder feedback during guidance development (80 FR 1424, January 9, 2015) available at
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Patient-Matched Guides to Orthopedic Implants.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in the following FDA regulations, guidance, and forms have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Prohibition on Wholesaling Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” This draft guidance describes FDA's interpretation of, and policies concerning, the statutory prohibition on wholesaling for certain compounded drugs. This draft guidance also describes examples of how FDA intends to apply the statutory wholesaling provision.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance on or before August 28, 2023 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2023. The
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows.
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)). Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Dominic Markwordt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5104, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3100,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Prohibition on Wholesaling Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” This draft guidance describes FDA's interpretation of, and policies concerning, the prohibition on wholesaling in section 503B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b). This draft guidance also describes examples of how FDA intends to apply section 503B of the FD&C Act's wholesaling provision.
Section 503B of the FD&C Act describes the conditions that must be satisfied for human drugs compounded by an outsourcing facility to be exempt from the following three sections of the FD&C Act: section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of drugs under new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications); section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use); and section 582 (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) (concerning drug supply chain security requirements).
Pursuant to section 503B(a)(8) of the FD&C Act, one of the conditions that must be met for a drug compounded by an outsourcing facility to qualify for the exemptions in section 503B of the FD&C Act is that the drug will not be sold or transferred by an entity other than the outsourcing facility that compounded the drug. However, the wholesaling provision does not prohibit administration of a drug in a health care setting or dispensing a drug pursuant to a prescription executed in accordance with section 503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act. The statutory prohibition on wholesaling in section 503B(a)(8) of the FD&C Act helps to ensure that compounding is based on individual patient need, which, in turn, reduces the overall risk of patient harm and helps to preserve the integrity of the U.S. drug approval process. It also helps to preserve the integrity of the U.S. drug supply chain. This prohibition, like other conditions in section 503B of the FD&C Act, preserves important distinctions between outsourcing facilities, which are intended to compound drugs for patients whose medical needs cannot be met by approved drugs, from conventional manufacturers, which generally engage in mass manufacturing of FDA-approved drug products.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the “Prohibition on Wholesaling Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. An alternative approach than what is described in the guidance can be used if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this draft guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 207 pertaining to registration of producers of drugs and listing of drugs in commercial distribution have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0045. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 210 and 211 pertaining to current good manufacturing practice have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139. The collections of information pertaining to postmarketing adverse drug experience reporting have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0230. The collections of information for adverse event reporting and human drug compounding under section 503B of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0800.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of the new drug application (NDA) for OXANDRIN (oxandrolone) tablets, 2.5 milligrams (mg) and 10 mg, held by Gemini Laboratories, LLC (Gemini). Gemini
Approval is withdrawn as of June 28, 2023.
Alexandria Fujisaki, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3600,
The applicants and their respective drugs and applications are included in the following table.
In a letter dated March 26, 2019, Gemini requested that FDA withdraw approval of NDA 013718 for OXANDRIN (oxandrolone) tablets, 2.5 mg and 10 mg, under § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)), stating that the product was no longer being marketed. Subsequently, on December 16, 2022, FDA notified Gemini and other holders of approved applications that the Agency believes a potential problem associated with oxandrolone tablets is sufficiently serious that the drug products should be removed from the market, and to enable withdrawal of approval of their applications under § 314.150(d).
The anabolic steroid OXANDRIN (oxandrolone) tablets, 2.5 mg and 10 mg, under NDA 013718, is indicated as follows: “as adjunctive therapy to promote weight gain after weight loss following extensive surgery, chronic infections, or severe trauma, and in some patients who without definite pathophysiologic reasons fail to gain or to maintain normal weight, to offset the protein catabolism associated with prolonged administration of corticosteroids, and for the relief of the bone pain frequently accompanying osteoporosis.”
In January 1984, FDA's Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee met and discussed anabolic steroids. The advisory committee unanimously concluded that there was no evidence of efficacy for oxandrolone.
As communicated in the product labeling, multiple safety warnings and precautions are associated with the use of oxandrolone tablets including peliosis hepatis, sometimes associated with liver failure and intra-abdominal hemorrhage; liver cell tumors, sometimes fatal; and blood lipid changes that are known to be associated with increased risk of atherosclerosis.
Based on FDA's review of currently available data and information regarding the safety and effectiveness of oxandrolone tablets, the Agency believes that the potential problems associated with oxandrolone tablets are sufficiently serious that the drug should be removed from the market.
After FDA notified Gemini that it believes the potential problems associated with the drug are sufficiently serious that the drug should be removed from the market pursuant to § 314.150(d), Gemini requested in a letter dated December 19, 2022 that FDA withdraw approval of NDA 013718 under § 314.150(d). Gemini waived its opportunity for a hearing. In a letter dated December 23, 2022, Sandoz requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANDA 076897 under § 314.150(d). Sandoz waived its opportunity for a hearing. In a letter dated January 5, 2023, Par requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANDA 077827 under § 314.150(d). Par waived its opportunity for a hearing. In separate letters dated January 6, 2023, Upsher-Smith requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANDAs 078033 and 076761 under § 314.150(d). Upsher-Smith waived its opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, which the applicants do not dispute in their letters requesting withdrawal of approval under § 314.150(d), FDA's approval of NDA 013718 and ANDAs 076897, 077827, 078033, and 076761, and all amendments and supplements thereto, are withdrawn (see DATES). Distribution of Gemini's OXANDRIN (oxandrolone) tablets, 2.5 mg and 10 mg; Sandoz's oxandrolone tablets 2.5 mg and 10 mg; Par's oxandrolone tablets, 2.5 mg and 10 mg; or Upsher-Smith's oxandrolone tablets, 2.5 mg and 10 mg, into interstate commerce without an approved application is illegal and subject to regulatory action (see sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(a) and 331(d)).
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before July 28, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be held virtually and is open to the public. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: FNLAC:
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to scheduling difficulties.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH) hereby gives notice that the
Thursday, September 28, 2023, from 1 to 3:00 p.m. ET. Written Tribal testimony is due by October 28, 2023.
Registration links are available on our Tribal Engagement website at
Elected Tribal Officials are encouraged to submit written testimony to
Dr. Joshua Denny
The
In the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255), Congress authorized NIH to carry out the Precision Medicine Initiative, which includes the
In June 2023,
1. Integrating information from self-identified AI/AN participants in our data platform, the
(a) How can the program augment the current policies and protections for self-identified AI/AN participant data so that it can be shared with researchers?
(b) What additional policies or guidance would you like
2. Honoring Tribal sovereignty when working with self-identified AI/AN individuals who consent to participate.
(a) What kinds of protective practices and measures can be implemented to avoid infringing upon Tribal sovereignty when collecting or working with individual participant data?
(b) How should the program manage and share data from self-identified AI/AN individuals who choose to participate in the program, including those who are living off Tribal lands and/or who are not affiliated with a federally recognized Tribe?
1. Possible future marketing efforts in zip codes that overlap on Tribal land and areas bordering Tribal land.
(a) How should the program guide engagement and outreach efforts where zip codes overlap with Tribal land?
2. Program activities for individual participants on Tribal land.
(a) What protocol should be followed when individual participants request program materials to be mailed to them or request home visits on Tribal lands?
1. Future inclusion of children in the
(a) What unique considerations are there for the future inclusion of AI/AN infants, children, and adolescents as participants in the program, given that a child's parent or legal guardian must be a current participant?
(b) What unique considerations are there for family-based enrollment in the research program (
(c) What specific factors should be taken into account when enrolling families in the research program, considering the possibility of kinship caregivers or non-traditional child care arrangements for the child?
2. AI/AN traditional blessing ceremony for biosamples of participants who withdraw from the program.
(a) How should the program proceed in conducting a traditional blessing ceremony for the participants who self-identify as AI/AN and request a blessing ceremony prior to the biosample disposition?
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 28, 2023.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0015 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0018. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 28, 2023.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 28, 2023.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 28, 2023.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 28, 2023.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments and information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Richard McGinley and Marion County, Florida (Florida Crossroads Commerce Park) (applicants) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicants request the ITP to take the federally listed Florida scrub-jay (
We must receive your written comments on or before July 28, 2023.
•
•
Erin Gawera, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Richard McGinley and Marion County, Florida (Florida Crossroads Commerce Park) (applicants), for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicants request a 20-year ITP to take scrub-jays via the conversion of approximately 67.20 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering scrub-jay habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a warehouse, loading docks, parking lots, and the associated stormwater systems, within an existing industrial park, and to Marion County's expansion of SW 49th Avenue on 131.9 ac on parcel numbers 41205-001002, 41205-001-03, 41205-001-04, 41205-001 in Section 16, Township 17 South, Range 21 East, Marion County, Florida. The applicants propose to mitigate for take of the scrub-jay by purchasing credits equivalent to 134.40 ac of scrub-jay occupied habitat within the Tippen Bay Conservation Bank or another Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicants to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any construction phase of the project.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicants' proposed project—including the construction of a warehouse, loading docks, parking lots, and Marion County's expansion of SW 49th Avenue, and the associated stormwater systems and associated infrastructure (
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER1971641 to Richard McGinley and Marion County (Florida Crossroads Commerce Park).
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Malabar PO, LLC and Stellar Communities, LLC (applicants) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicants request the ITP to take the federally listed Audubon's crested caracara (
We must receive your written comments on or before July 28, 2023.
•
•
Kenneth McDonald, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of an application from Malabar PO, LLC and Stellar Communities, LLC (applicants) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicants request a 5-year ITP to take Audubon's crested caracara via the impaired reproduction and survival of one Audubon's crested caracara nest and their young annually. Records of Audubon's crested caracara, both adult and juvenile, are ubiquitous within a 4921-foot (1,500-meter) radius of the project site. The site contains habitat suitable for Audubon's crested caracara foraging, and it is assumed to be part of an existing nesting territory.
Malabar PO, LLC and Stellar Communities, LLC plan to mitigate for unavoidable periodic failure of one Audubon's crested caracara nest and impaired foraging in the project footprint with a contribution of $12,555.00 (based on 27.9 ac of proposed impact at a cost of $450 per ac) to the Fish and Wildlife Foundation of Florida's caracara conservation fund. This sum will be allocated to restore abandoned citrus groves to habitat suitable for caracara nesting and foraging. The area of abandoned citrus grove restored to suitable caracara habitat will be equal to the area of existing suitable habitat that will be impacted by the proposed action. The contribution to the fund must be completed prior to construction. Upon contribution of the $12,555.00, a letter will be secured from the Foundation by the Service confirming that the full amount of mitigation has been contributed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicants' proposed project, including the additional construction activities, operation, maintenance, vegetative management, and public use, would individually and cumulatively have a minor effect on Audubon's crested caracara and the human environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be a low-effect ITP that individually or cumulatively would have a minor effect on the eastern indigo snake and may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. A low-effect incidental take permit is one that would result in (1) minor or nonsignificant effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) nonsignificant effects on the human environment; and (3) impacts that, when added together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would not result in significant cumulative effects to the human environment.
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER2261354 to Malabar PO, LLC and Stellar Communities, LLC.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
On June 22, 2023, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in the lawsuit entitled
The United States and State of West Virginia filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties against Defendant Messer LLC for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit numeric effluent limit violations with respect to wastewater discharges from Messer's industrial gas manufacturing plant in New Cumberland, West Virginia. The consent decree requires the defendant to perform injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, the operation of a newly installed copper treatment system by certain deadlines, the implementation of a tiered effluent limit response plan, as well as revision and routine performance of stormwater best management practice measures. The consent decree also requires the defendant to pay a $1.9 million civil penalty.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $13.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until July 28, 2023.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Leslie Anderson, by phone at 304-616-4634 or email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: John R. Carlson, 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.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Formaldehyde Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 28, 2023.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it.
The standard protects workers from the adverse health effects from occupational exposure to formaldehyde, including an itchy, runny, and stuffy nose; a dry or sore throat; eye irritation; headaches; and cancer of the lung, buccal cavity (mouth), and pharynx (throat). Formaldehyde solutions can damage the skin and burn the eyes.
The standard specifies a number of collections of information. The following is a brief description of the collections of information contained in the Formaldehyde Standard. The standard requires employers to conduct worker exposure monitoring to determine workers' exposure to formaldehyde, notify workers of their formaldehyde exposures, provide medical surveillance to workers, provide examining physicians with specific information, ensure that workers receive a copy of their medical examination results, maintain workers' exposure monitoring and medical records for specific periods, and provide access to these records by the affected workers and their authorized representatives.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting an adjusted increase in the burden hours from 240,924 to 263,172 hours, for a total increase of 22,848 hours.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-04, Chapter 10, “Control of Occupational Dose.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33936) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0077 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-03, Chapter 9, “Control of Routine Plant Radioactive Effluents, Plant Contamination and Solid Waste.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33930) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0076 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the NRC's PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-06, Chapter 12, “Post-Construction Inspection, Testing, and Analysis Program.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33920) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0079 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the NRC's PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-01, “Review of Risk-Informed, Technology Inclusive Advanced Reactor Applications—Roadmap.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33924) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Joseph Sebrosky, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1132, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0074 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-07, “Risk-informed Inservice Inspection/Inservice Testing.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33938) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0080 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-09, “Risk-informed Performance-based Fire Protection Program (for Operations).” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33922) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0082 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the NRC's PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-08, “Risk-informed Technical Specifications.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33926) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0081 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-02, Chapter 2, “Site Information.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33940) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0075 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; extension of comment period.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DANU-ISG-2022-05, Chapter 11, “Organization and Human-System Considerations.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33928) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than August 10, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3229, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0078 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published a document in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.
Under section 4 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) (45 U.S.C. 354), an employee who leaves work voluntarily is disqualified for unemployment benefits unless the employee left work for good cause and is not qualified for unemployment benefits under any other law. RRB Form UI-45,
Completion of Form UI-45 is required to obtain or retain benefits. One response is received from each respondent. The RRB proposes no changes to Form UI-45.
Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231a) provides for payment of annuities to qualified employees and their spouses. In order to receive an age and service annuity, section 2(e)(3) states that an applicant must stop all railroad work and give up any rights to return to such work. However, applicants are not required to stop nonrailroad work or self-employment.
The RRB considers some work claimed as “self-employment” to actually be employment for an employer. Whether the RRB classifies a particular activity as self-employment or as work for an employer depends upon the circumstances of each case. These circumstances are prescribed in 20 CFR 216.
Under the 1988 amendments to the RRA, an applicant is no longer required to stop work for a “Last Pre-Retirement Nonrailroad Employer” (LPE). However, section 2(f)(6) of the RRA requires that a portion of the employee's Tier II benefit and supplemental annuity be deducted for earnings from the “LPE.”
The “LPE” is defined as the last person, company, or institution with whom the employee or spouse applicant was employed concurrently with, or after, the applicant's last railroad employment and before their annuity beginning date. If a spouse never worked for a railroad, the LPE is the last person for whom he or she worked.
The RRB utilizes Form AA-4,
Completion is voluntary. However, failure to complete the form could result in the nonpayment of benefits. The RRB proposes no changes to Form AA-4.
Under section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231a) provides for payment of disability annuities to qualified employees and widow(er)s. The establishment of permanent disability for work in the applicant's “regular occupation” or for work in any regular employment is prescribed in 20 CFR 220.12 and 220.13, respectively.
To enable the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) to determine the effect of a disability on an applicant's ability to work, the RRB needs the applicant's work history. The RRB utilizes Form G-251, Vocational Report, to obtain this information.
Form G-251 is provided to all applicants for employee disability annuities and to those applicants for a widow(er)'s disability annuity who indicate that they have been employed at some time. Form G-251 is designed for use with the RRB's disability benefit application forms. Form G-251 is similar to Form SSA-3369-BK, OMB 0960-0578. The RRB proposes the no changes to the Form G-251.
Under section 7(b)(6) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231) gives the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) the authority to require railroad employers to furnish information and records that are necessary for the administration of the Act. Coordination between railroad employers and the RRB is essential to properly administer the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). In order to enhance timely coordination activity, the RRB utilizes Form G-117a,
Completion is voluntary. One response is requested from each respondent. The RRB proposes to change the Form G-117a (Paper) by adding updated language in Section 12, Signature line. The language proposed is, “The above officials of this employer are authorized to serve in the capacities indicated and to act as trusted referees for the RRB in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-63A guidelines for online reporting access.”
The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-117a (internet).
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding this information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 28, 2023. Individuals can obtain copies of this OMB clearance package by writing to
SSA is requesting clearance to collect data necessary to evaluate an intervention under the Interventional Cooperative Agreement Program (ICAP) with the State of Georgia's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC). ICAP allows SSA to partner with various non-federal groups and organizations to advance interventional research connected to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) programs. SSA awarded CJCC a cooperative agreement to conduct an intervention and evaluation of Supplemental Security Income (SSI)/Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Outreach, Access, and Recovery (SOAR) model in county jails with inmates with serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI) across the state. In addition to SSA, CJCC has partnered with the following: (1) Applied Research Services (ARS); (2) the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD); and (3) four county jails to implement the program.
Investigators hypothesize that untreated mental illness and repeated psychiatric crises may be a factor in jail recidivism. Connection to SSI/SSDI and attendant insurance benefits may help a person with SPMI obtain treatment and interrupt criminogenic behavior. The intervention will connect respondents in four county jails identified as having SPMI to Medicaid Eligibility Specialists (MES) hired and trained by the Georgia DBHDD, who will help them apply for SSI and SSDI. Respondents in two of the four counties (Fulton County Jail and Cobb County Jail) will also have the option of working with a Forensic Peer Mentor (FPM), a formerly incarcerated individual who is familiar with resources that may help participants increase their quality-of-life post incarceration and avoid recidivism. SSA anticipates the two DBHDD MESs will each serve 45 participants per year, for a total of 90 participants per year.
To maximize the likelihood of the SSI/SSDI application approval, the MES will employ the SOAR method, which uses in-depth medical and personal summaries of disability to facilitate the SSI/SSDI application process. Researchers will collect data from participant surveys to evaluate and study the impact of the intervention. Through the data collected through these surveys, along with administrative data from SSA, the State of Georgia, participating counties, and DBHDD, SSA hopes to address the following research questions:
• Does connection to a SOAR-trained specialist increase the likelihood that a person with SPMI in jail will be approved for SSI/SSDI benefits?
• If a person with SPMI receives SSI/SSDI benefits, are they able to connect to treatment resources that they may not have been able to obtain before?
• If a person with SPMI connects to treatment resources and successfully engages with them, are they able to achieve mental health recovery and stay out of jail?
The respondents are individuals with serious and persistent mental illness incarcerated in county jails in the state of Georgia.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to July 28, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Matthew Miller, Bureau of Administration, Office of Logistics Management, 1800 N Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209, who may be reached on (703) 675 9509 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
In compliance with OMB Guidelines contained in 2 CFR 200, recipient organizations are required to provide, and the U.S. Department of State is required to collect, periodic program and financial performance reports. The responsibility of the Department to track and monitor the programmatic and financial performance necessitates a database that can help facilitate this in a consistent and standardized manner. The SAMS Domestic Results Monitoring Module enables enhanced monitoring and evaluation of grants through standardized collection and storage of relevant award elements, such as quarterly progress reports, workplans, results monitoring plans, grant agreements, and other business information related to implementers. The SAMS Domestic Results Monitoring Module streamlines communication with implementers and allows for rapid identification of information gaps for specific projects.
Information will be electronically entered into SAMS Domestic by respondents.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including section 1 of the Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201
The Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of State, or the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources may at any time exercise any function or authority delegated herein.
Any reference in this delegation of authority to any act shall be deemed to be a reference to such act as amended from time to time. The reference in this delegation to the International Broadcasting Advisory Board is deemed to be reference to any successor entity established by the Act.
Nothing herein shall be construed to rescind or otherwise modify any delegation of authority currently in effect.
This delegation shall be published in the
Pursuant to the authority vested in the President under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93-618, 88
This Determination shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by E.O. 13268 of July 2, 2002, E.O. 13284 of January 23, 2003, and E.O. 13886 of September 9, 2019, I hereby determine that the persons known as Arkan Ahmad `Abbas al-Matuti (also known as Arkan Ahmad Abbas Albu-Mazida Albu-Miteuti, Arkan Ahmad `Abbas al-Mitiwiti, and Abu Sarhan) and Nawaf Ahmad Alwan al-Rashidi (also known as Qahtan Nawaf Ahmad Alwan Sada, Nawaf Ahmed Alwan, and Abu Faris) are leaders of ISIS, a group whose property and interests in property are currently blocked pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of State pursuant to E.O. 13224.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of E.O. 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before July 18, 2023.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-1187 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Daniel Gilbert, AIR-646, Federal Aviation Administration, phone 405-954-5833, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability; requests for comments.
The Federal Aviation Administration announces that a Draft
Comments on or before July 31, 2023.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-1368 to the Federal Regulations portal at
For technical questions concerning this notice, contact Aaron W. Comrov, Environmental Team Lead, FAA CSA ES EOSH Center (AJW-2C16E), 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 450, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (847) 294-7665, email
The Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) considers the conditions and potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action to replace numerous FAA-owned airport traffic control towers (ATCTs) with modern facilities under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law-funded ATCT Replacement Program. Many existing ATCTs at municipal or general aviation airports are outdated and operating past their design life. The purpose and need for the proposed program is to replace select FAA-owned ATCTs across the nation with modern ATCTs while providing uninterrupted air traffic control services. The FAA has prepared the Draft PEA in conformance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and FAA Order 1050.1F,
The Proposed Action would provide for modern, operationally efficient ATCTs, which would be designed to meet the energy and sustainability requirements of FAA's
Based on this analysis, the FAA has preliminarily determined there will not be a significant impact to the human environment from implementation of the Proposed Action. The FAA intends for the PEA to create efficiencies by establishing a “tiering” framework, where appropriate, to project-specific actions that require additional analysis. As decisions on specific project sites are made, to the extent additional NEPA analysis is required, environmental reviews would be conducted to supplement the analysis set forth in this PEA.
The Draft PEA is available for review on the project website (
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces action taken by FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final. The actions relate to the Central Business District Tolling Program in New York, New York.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before November 27, 2023. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Richard J. Marquis, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, 11A Clinton Avenue, Suite 719, Albany, New York 12207, Telephone (518) 431-4127.
Notice is hereby given that FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing approvals for the following highway project in the State of New York: Central Business District Tolling Program, New York, New York. The Project purpose is to reduce traffic congestion in the Manhattan Central Business District in a manner that will generate revenue for future transportation improvements, pursuant to acceptance into FHWA's Value Pilot Pricing Program.
The objectives of the Project are to:
• Reduce daily vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) within the Manhattan Central Business District by at least 5 percent.
• Reduce the number of vehicles entering the Manhattan CBD daily by at least 10 percent.
• Create a funding source for capital improvements and generate sufficient annual net revenues to fund $15 billion for capital projects for the MTA Capital Program.
• Establish a tolling program consistent with the purposes underlying the New York State legislation entitled the MTA Reform and Traffic Mobility Act.
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the FHWA Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, signed May 5, 2023, in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, issued on June 23, 2023, and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The Final EA, FONSI, and other documents in the FHWA administrative record files are available by contacting FHWA at the address provided above. The Final EA and FONSI can also be viewed and downloaded from the project website:
This notice applies to FHWA agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351].
2. Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
3. Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
4. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
5. Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and 1536].
6. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)].
7. Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].
8. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 668-668c].
9. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470].
10. Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].
11. Clean Water Act (Section 319, Section 401, Section 402, Section 404) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377].
12. Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300(f)
13. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 [42 U.S.C. 4601
14. Noise Control Act of 1972 [42 U.S.C. 4901
15. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)].
16. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675].
17. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12101].
18. Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands.
19. Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management.
20. Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
21. Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources.
22. Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites.
23. Executive Order 13287 Preserve America.
24. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
25. Executive Order 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.
26. Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species.
27. Executive Order 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for eight individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on May 14, 2023. The exemptions expire on May 14, 2025.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On May 15, 2023, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 8 individuals from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (88 FR 31096). The public comment period ended on June 14, 2023, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively).
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the eight renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in section 391.41(b)(11).
As of May 14, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption
The drivers were included in docket number numbers FMCSA-2018-0136 or FMCSA-2021-0013. Their exemptions were applicable as of May 14, 2023 and will expire on May 14, 2025.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, or the FMCSRs.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning a revision to its information collection titled, “Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by July 28, 2023.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth below:
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OCC asks that OMB approve this revised collection.
Sections 731 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act require the registration and regulation of swap dealers and major swap participants and security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, respectively (collectively, “swap entities”). For certain types of swap entities that are prudentially regulated by one of the Agencies,
The OCC has determined that § 45.1(h), previously cleared as part of this information collection, no longer includes a disclosure collection of information because the conditions triggering the disclosure have expired. In addition, the OCC has omitted from this information collection the following provisions that were formerly referenced in the clearance because it determined that the provisions do not constitute collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act: §§ 45.1(d); 45.5(c)(2)(i); 45.8(c)(2); 45.8(d)(5), (12), and (13); 45.8(e); and 45.8(f)(2), (3), and (4).
Section 45.2 defines terms referenced in part 45. Under the definition of “eligible master netting agreement,” a covered swap entity that relies on such agreement for purpose of calculating required margin must (1) conduct sufficient legal review of the agreement to conclude with a well-founded basis that the agreement meets specified criteria and maintain sufficient written documentation of that legal review and (2) establish and maintain written procedures for monitoring relevant changes in law and to ensure that the agreement continues to satisfy the requirements of the definition. To demonstrate compliance with this section, records must be retained for as long as the covered swap entity relies on such agreement. The term “eligible master netting agreement” is used elsewhere in the rule to specify instances in which a covered swap entity may (1) calculate variation margin on an aggregate basis across multiple non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps and (2) calculate initial margin requirements under an initial margin model for one or more swaps and security-based swaps.
Section 45.7 generally requires a covered swap entity to ensure that any initial margin collateral that it collects or posts is held at a third-party custodian. Section 45.7(c) requires the custodian to act pursuant to a custody agreement that: (1) prohibits the custodian from rehypothecating, repledging, reusing, or otherwise transferring (through securities lending, securities borrowing, repurchase agreement, reverse repurchase agreement or other means) the collateral held by the custodian except that cash collateral may be held in a general deposit account with the custodian if the funds in the account are used to purchase certain assets, such assets are held in compliance with § 45.7, and such purchase takes place within a time period reasonably necessary to consummate such purchase after the cash collateral is posted as initial margin; and (2) is a legal, valid, binding, and enforceable agreement under the laws of all relevant jurisdictions, including in the event of bankruptcy, insolvency, or a similar proceeding. A custody agreement may permit the posting party to substitute or direct any reinvestment of posted collateral held by the custodian, provided that, with respect to collateral collected by a covered swap entity pursuant to § 45.3(a) or posted by a covered swap entity pursuant to § 45.3(b), the agreement requires the posting party to substitute only funds or other property that would qualify as eligible collateral under § 45.6, and for which the amount net of applicable discounts described in appendix B would be sufficient to meet the requirements of § 45.3 and direct reinvestment of funds only in assets that would qualify as eligible collateral under § 45.6, and for which the amount net of applicable discounts described in appendix B would be sufficient to meet the requirements of § 45.3.
Section 45.8 sets forth standards for the use of initial margin models. These standards include: (1) a requirement that the covered swap entity receive prior approval from the OCC based on demonstration that the initial margin model meets specific requirements (§ 45.8(c)(1)); (2) a requirement that a covered swap entity notify the OCC in writing 60 days before extending use of the model to additional product types, making certain changes to the initial margin model, or making material changes to modeling assumptions (§ 45.8(c)(3)); and (3) a requirement that the covered swap entity demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that the omission of any risk factor from the calculation of its initial margin is appropriate, prior to omitting such risk factor (§ 45.8(d)(10)), and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that the incorporation of any proxy or approximation used to capture the risks of the covered swap entity's non-cleared swaps or non-cleared security-based swaps is appropriate, prior to incorporating such proxy or approximation (§ 45.8(d)(11)). Also, if the validation process reveals any material problems with the initial margin model, the covered swap entity must promptly notify the OCC of the problems, describe to the OCC any remedial actions being taken, and adjust the initial margin model to ensure an appropriately conservative amount of required initial margin is being calculated (§ 45.8(f)(3)).
Section 45.8 also sets forth requirements for the ongoing review and documentation of initial margin models. These standards include a requirement that the covered swap entity adequately document all material aspects of its initial margin model (§ 45.8(g)) and that the covered swap entity must adequately document internal authorization procedures, including escalation procedures, that require review and approval of any change to the initial margin calculation under the initial margin model, demonstrable analysis that any basis for any such change is consistent with the requirements of § 45.8, and independent review of such demonstrable analysis and approval (§ 45.8(h)).
Section 45.9 addresses the treatment of cross-border transactions and, in certain limited situations, will permit a covered swap entity to comply with a foreign regulatory framework for non-cleared swaps (as a substitute for compliance with the prudential regulators' rule) if the prudential regulators jointly determine that the foreign regulatory framework is comparable to the requirements in the prudential regulators' rule. Section 45.9(e) allows a covered swap entity to request that the prudential regulators make a substituted compliance determination and provides that the covered swap entity must provide the reasons for the request and other required supporting documentation. A request for a substituted compliance determination must include a description of the scope and objectives of the foreign regulatory framework for non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps; the specific provisions of the foreign regulatory framework for non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps (scope of transactions covered; determination of the amount of initial and variation margin required; timing of margin requirements; documentation requirements; forms of eligible collateral; segregation and re-hypothecation requirements; and approval process and standards for models); the supervisory compliance program and enforcement authority exercised by a foreign financial regulatory authority or authorities in such system to support its oversight of the application of the non-cleared swap and security-based swap regulatory framework; and any other descriptions and documentation that the prudential regulators determine are appropriate. A covered swap entity may make a request
Section 45.10 requires a covered swap entity to execute trading documentation with each counterparty that is either a swap entity or financial end user regarding credit support arrangements that: (1) provides the contractual right to collect and post initial margin and variation margin in such amounts, in such form, and under such circumstances as are required; and (2) specifies the methods, procedures, rules, and inputs for determining the value of each non-cleared swap or non-cleared security-based swap for purposes of calculating variation margin requirements, and the procedures for resolving any disputes concerning valuation.
On April 7, 2023, the OCC published a 60-day notice for this information collection, (88 FR 20941). No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts.”
Comments must be received by August 28, 2023.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth in the next bullet. Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7 St. SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
• A national bank or FSA that has more than $700 billion in total assets as reported on the national bank's or FSA's most recent Call Report;
• A national bank or FSA that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important bank holding company that has been designated pursuant to § 252.82 of this title (Federal Reserve Board Regulation YY) (12 CFR 252.82);
• A national bank or FSA that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important foreign banking organization that has been designated pursuant to § 252.87 of this title (Federal Reserve Board Regulation YY) (12 CFR 252.87);
• A Federal branch or agency, as defined in subpart B of this chapter (governing Federal branches and agencies), of a global systemically important foreign banking organization that has been designated pursuant to § 252.87 of this title (Federal Reserve Board Regulation YY) (12 CFR 252.87); or
• A subsidiary of a covered bank, except, as defined in 12 CFR 47.3(b)(3), subsidiaries held in satisfaction of debt previously contracted in good faith, portfolio companies held under the Small Business Investment Act of 1956, and certain companies engaged in the business of making public welfare investments.
The requirements are intended to enhance the resilience and the safety and soundness of Federally chartered and licensed financial institutions by addressing concerns relating to the exercise of default rights of certain financial contracts that could interfere with the orderly resolution of certain systemically important financial firms.
Covered banks may comply either by amending the contractual provisions of their QFCs consistent with the requirements of §§ 47.4 and 47.5 within a specified period of time or by adhering to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol or U.S. Protocol (ISDA Protocols). Alternatively, 12 CFR 47.6(b)(1) provides that a covered bank may request that the OCC approve as compliant with the requirements of §§ 47.4 and 47.5 provisions of one or more forms of covered QFCs, or amendments to one or more forms of covered QFCs, with enhanced creditor protection conditions.
In order for the OCC to evaluate a covered bank's request, 12 CFR 47.6(b)(3) requires that the request include (1) an analysis of the proposal that addresses a range of factors laid out in § 47.6(d) that are intended to facilitate the OCC's consideration of whether the proposal would be consistent with the restrictions and the main objectives of the rule; (2) a written legal opinion verifying that the covered bank's proposed provisions or amendments would be valid and enforceable under applicable laws of the relevant jurisdictions, including, in the case of proposed amendments, the validity and enforceability of the proposal to amend the covered QFCs; and (3) any additional information relevant to the OCC's approval that the OCC requests. The OCC will then use the information collected to determine whether the covered bank's proposed alternative creditor protection conditions comply with the requirements of the rule and achieve its policy goals.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
• The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
• Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before July 28, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
IRS Notice 2023-26 provides guidance on the new sustainable aviation fuel credits under §§ 40B and 6426(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (referred the SAF credit) and related credit and payment rules under §§ 34(a)(3), 38, 87, and 6427(e)(1). This notice also provides rules related to the § 4101 registration requirements. The certificate, reseller statement, and declaration created by IRS Notice 2023-06 will allow the IRS to verify that claimants are making proper credit and payment claims with respect to the SAF credit.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before July 28, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Melody Braswell by emailing
Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the VA is modifying the system of records titled “Veterans Health Administration Human Capital Management—VA” (161VA10A2) as set forth in the
Comments on this modified system of records must be received no later than 30 days after the date of publication in the
Comments may be submitted through
Stephania Griffin, VHA Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; Telephone number 704-245-2492 (this is not a toll-free number) or
VA is amending the system of records by revising the System Number; System Location; System Manager; Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the
The System Number is being updated from 161VA10A2 to 161VA10 to reflect the current VHA organizational routing symbol.
The System Location is being modified to remove records being maintained at the “North Little Rock Campus, 2200 Fort Roots Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72114.” This section will now state that the records are maintained at “Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center, 1901 Veterans Memorial Drive, Temple, Texas 76504.”
The System Manager is being updated to remove “Manager of the Human Capital Systems and Services (HCSS), 55 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 1010, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. Director of Events Division, Employee Education System, #1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125. Deputy Director of Events Division, Employee Education System, #1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125. Associate Director of Web Architecture, Employee Education System, 2200 Fort Roots Drive, Building 11, North Little Rock, AR 72114.” This section will now state that “Official maintaining the system is Program Director, Workforce Management & Consulting, 55 N Robinson Avenue, Suite 1010, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. Telephone number 405-552-4345 (this is not a toll-free number).”
The language in Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System is being updated. The language will now state
3. DOJ, Litigation, Administrative Proceeding: To the Department of Justice (DoJ), or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which VA is authorized to appear, when:
(a) VA or any component thereof;
(b) Any VA employee in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any VA employee in his or her official capacity where DoJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where VA determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components, is a party to such proceedings or has an interest in such proceedings, and VA determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the proceedings.
Policies and Practices for Storage of Records is being modified to remove “Records maintained on the HPDM1 Server and VACIN Server and backup servers in Little Rock, Arkansas and Cincinnati, Ohio.” This section will now state “Records are maintained on servers at the Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center, 1901 Veterans Memorial Drive, Temple, Texas 76504 and backup servers at Cyxtera—CenturyLink Federal Site 322, 350 E Cermak, Chicago, IL 60616.”
Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records is being modified to remove “The records disposed of in accordance with General records 4.3, item 031.” Since 4.3 has been superseded by 5.2.20 General Records Schedule (GRS), this section will now state “Records are disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule (GRS) 5.2, Item 020.”
Categories of Records in the System is being modified to update language as “The records include information from Veterans Affairs Central Office (VACO), VHA, VHA Canteen, VHA Central Office, Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA), and National Cemetery Administration (NCA) personnel.”
Exemptions Promulgated for the System is being modified to remove, “Under Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), the head of any agency may exempt any system of records within the agency from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, if the system of records is testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process. The Talent Assessment Data within the system of records is considered examination material used to determine if an employee has the qualifications, leadership skills and experience necessary to become a Medical Center Director.
“Based upon the foregoing, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has exempted this system of records, to the extent that it encompasses information pertaining to criminal law enforcement related activities from the following provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1) through (4); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); 5 U.S.C. 552a(f); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); 5 U.S.C. 552a(f).
“
Records Access Procedure is being amended to remove current language and replace with “Individuals seeking information on the existence and content of records in this system pertaining to them should contact the system manager in writing as indicated above or may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact. A request for access to records must contain the requester's full name, address, telephone number, be signed by the requester, and describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable VA personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort.”
Contesting Records Procedures is being amended to remove current language and replace with “Individuals seeking to contest or amend records in this system pertaining to them should contact the system manager in writing as indicated above or may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact. A request to contest or amend records must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record.
Notification Procedure is being amended to remove current language and replace with “Generalized notice is provided by the publication of this notice. For specific notice, see Record Access Procedure, above.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department
“Veterans Health Administration Human Capital Management—VA” (161VA10).
Unclassified.
Records are located at the Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center, 1901 Veterans Memorial Drive, Temple, Texas 76504.
Official responsible for policies and procedures for the system is the Program Director, Workforce Management & Consulting, 55 N Robinson Avenue, Suite 1010, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. Telephone number 405-552-4345 (this is not a toll-free number).
38 U.S.C. 501(a).
The purpose of these records is used for the management of VHA executive and senior executive employees, as well as employees in national programs, for performance appraisal and bonus award entries, bonus and appraisal documentation storage, rank award and type given, supervisory training status, leadership and organization development, and employee position management. Records will support pairing of learning and professional growth services by internal coaches and consultants to VA employees and leaders. Reports for workforce succession planning and analysis, VHA supervisory training status and course grade, bonus award dollar amounts per executive and non-executive employees are used by Performance Review Boards. The creation and filling of human resource positions, as well as data on the tracking of employee actions and assignments, is gathered for the purpose of business processing and analysis.
Workgroups are developed for survey use and data collection. Data that is entered and stored may be extracted from the database and used for other applications.
The records include information from Veterans Affairs Central Office (VACO), VHA, VHA Canteen, VHA Central Office, Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA), and National Cemetery Administration (NCA) personnel.
The records may include information related to people, work groups, workforce, funding, leadership classes, personal development plans, supervisory levels, mentor and coach roles and certifications, High Performance Development Model, senior executive information and recruitment, Human Resources automation, positions, organizations, the Talent Assessment Data and locations of VHA top management positions. Central Office and Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) managers and staff, facility directors, associate directors, chiefs of staff, and other senior clinical and administrative field managers' positions are included. The VHA Executive Management Program consists of the functions that fall under the purview of the VHA Executive Resources Board and the VHA Performance Review Board. Their functions include executive development, recruitment and placement; organizational analysis; succession planning; and performance assessment and recognition. The method used to collect this information is a proprietary system using relational technology. Information from this database is joined and expanded with information from the VHA executive program processes (
1. Employee data, including Employee legal name, Social Security Number, Veteran's preference, Vietnam Era Veteran, Retirement plan, Tenure, Universal personal identification number, Universal username, Sex, Supervisory status, Supervisory training status, Work contact information, Facility, Network Identification, Home contact information, Home of record contact information, Assigned facility/organization, Pay plan, Pay grade, Step, Retirement eligibility, Union membership, Leave balances, Program, Credentials, Grievance, Disciplinary actions, Third-party and other employee actions, Work Setting status, Service Type, Clinical position type, Coaching preference, Performance standards and Resume.
2. Employee position data, including VHA Leadership and Workforce Development position titles, High Performance Development Management ratings, Position requestor contact data, Legal authority, Competitive Level, Fair Labor Standards Act category, Drug testing position indicator, Citizenship/Residency status, English language proficiency, Announcement status, Vacancy status, Date job opened, Days to open, Days to issue certificate, Date job closed, Job type/Occupation series/Grade, Pay plan, Work schedule, Appropriation code, Cost center, Date candidates referred, Date nomination received, Date to Executive Resources Board, Date credentials complete, Date recruitment received, Position start and end dates, Appointment start and end dates, Position location (Location complexity rating), Position reporting official (Position status, Supervisory, Bargaining unit, Senior executive pay band), Level of supervisory responsibility, Date of offer, Position status change, Reason for change, Position authorization data, Announcement tracking data (location and dates of actions), Area of consideration, Number of applicants (internal, external, not qualified), Number interviewed, Applicant outcome and notification, Selecting
3. Bonus data, including Executive/Senior Executive Service (Pay band and band max pay, Proposed pay adjustment, Proposed rating, Approved rating, Approved bonus pay, Actual pay, Rank award), Type, Previous year nomination and award amount, Current year nomination (Bonus pool total, Local bonus funding amount, Form Uploads), Appraisal, High level reviews, Comments, Bonus justification, Rank award nominations, Non-Executive (each Fiscal Year) (Rating, Award amount, Pay adjustment (Yes/No)).
4. Workgroups and Organizations, including just under 100 codes—not job occupation series codes—code developed for the All-Employee Survey (Agency selection, Veterans Affairs, VHA, VBA, NCA), Agency networks, Agency organizations, Formal and informal name, Organization type, Network, Physical location, Duty Code, Complexity Level, Station number, Workgroup supervisory designations, Workgroup coordinator assignment, Workgroup coordinator contact info.
5. Development Plans, including Uploaded text document (Document filled from template, Free text employee documentation).
6. Funding, including Program funding, Program funds available, Reimbursement type, Appropriation code, Fiscal contact name and phone, Amount per employee, Fund control point, Requested average salary, Approved funds, Withdrawn funds, Date funding sent, Approval funding comments, Approved Full Time Equivalents dollars, Cost center.
7. Career Programs, including Program Eligibility criteria, Program waiver, Program employee applied, Class title, Program/Class year, School name and state, Major, Anticipated graduation date, Application status, Employment history, Education history, Competency data (application questions and answers), Applicant endorsers, Class administrator assignments, Employee list per class, Program completion status, Requested number of student hires, Requested funding for student salary, Student work schedule, Number Full Time Equivalents requested.
8. Workforce Planning (Annual Corporate Office and VISNs), including Planning team members, Strategic direction, Historical analysis (Employee reason to leave, Equal employment opportunity category of employee), Projected workforce-rational and issues, Recruitment and Retention programs used, Leadership programs/activities and participation, Workplace morale assessment, Work plan comments.
9. Mentor and Coach Information, including Mentor status, Coach status, Core training (Courses, Date and location, Training instructors, Training history), Certification level, Education, Biographical information, Availability, Practical experience years, hours and event.
10. Perseus Survey Software, including Employee legal name, Last 4 of Social Security number, VISNs, Facility/Office, Work Setting (Section/Division/Campus/Product Line/Service/Department), Occupation, Identification of supervisory chain of command, Identification of boss, Identification of peer and subordinate relationships, Demographic information (Gender, Age, Race/National Origin, Tenure, Grade Level), Data Input in Response to survey questions (questionnaires which cover the following types of topics as an example:
11. Program Management, including Inquiry Status, Inquiry date, Enrollment status, Enrollment date, Pairing status, Open/closed status, Referral source, Close reason, Survey status, Service start and end dates, Target group, Group location, Organizational chart, Service requested, Organizational opportunities/challenges, Complaints, Barriers to work, Signed agreement.
12. Service contact information, including Contact dates, Contact time, Contact type, Contact notes.
13. Development Assessments, including Assessment type, Results and summaries.
14. Employee Requesting Information, including Leadership interests and experiences, Number of direct reports, Current role descriptors, Self-described characteristics, Readiness for change, Current and future role preferences and Aspirations.
15. Credentialing Audio Recordings and Transcripts, including Audio files.
Information in this system of records is provided by VA's employees associated to VA Medical Centers, VA Central Offices, VBA, NCA, VHA Central Offices, VHA Canteen, VISNs and facilities.
1. Congress: To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
2. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA): To the NARA in records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906, or other functions authorized by laws and policies governing NARA operations and VA records management responsibilities.
3. DOJ, Litigation, Administrative Proceeding: To the Department of Justice (DoJ), or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which VA is authorized to appear, when:
(a) VA or any component thereof;
(b) Any VA employee in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any VA employee in his or her official capacity where DoJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where VA determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components,
4. Contractors: To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students,
5. Law Enforcement: To a Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law, provided that the disclosure is limited to information that, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature.
6. Federal Agencies, Fraud and Abuse: To other Federal agencies to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
7. Data Breach Response and Remediation, for VA: To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
8. VA may disclose any audio files and accompanying transcripts to coaching credentialing entities for the sole purpose of evaluation of a coach who is applying for an advanced coaching credential.
9. Data Breach Response and Remediation, for Another Federal Agency: To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
10. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): To EEOC in the connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law.
11. Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA): To the FLRA in connection with: the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; matters before the Federal Service Impasses Panel; and the investigation of representation petitions and the conduct or supervision of representation elections.
12. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): To a former VA employee or contractor, as well as the authorized representative of a current or former employee or contractor of VA, in proceedings before the MSPB in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as otherwise authorized by law.
Records are maintained on servers at the Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center, 1901 Veterans Memorial Drive, Temple, Texas 76504 and backup servers at Cyxtera—CenturyLink Federal Site 322, 350 E Cermak, Chicago, IL 60616.
Records in this system are retrieved by name, social security number, position number, organization number, or other assigned identifiers of the organizations, positions or individuals on whom they are maintained.
The records are disposed of in accordance with GRS 5.2, Item 020.
1. Access to and use of national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access, and VA has established security procedures to ensure that access is appropriately limited. Information security officers and system data stewards review and authorize data access requests. VA regulates data access with security software that authenticates users and requires individually unique codes and passwords. VA requires information security training for all staff and instructs staff on the responsibility each person has for safeguarding data confidentiality.
2. Physical access to computer rooms housing national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts is restricted to authorized staff and protected by a variety of security devices. Unauthorized employees, contractors, and other staff are not allowed in computer rooms.
3. Data transmissions between operational systems and national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts maintained by this system of record are protected by state-of-the-art telecommunication software and hardware. This may include firewalls, intrusion detection devices, encryption, and other security measures necessary to safeguard data as it travels across the Wide Area Network.
Individuals seeking information on the existence and content of records in this system pertaining to them should contact the system manager in writing as indicated above or may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact. A request for access to records must contain the requester's full name, address, telephone number, be signed by the requester, and describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable VA personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort.
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records in this system pertaining to them should contact the system manager in writing as indicated above or may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact. A request to contest or amend records must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record.
Generalized notice is provided by the publication of this notice. For specific notice, see Record Access Procedure, above.
None.
75 FR 7651 (February 22, 2010), 83 FR 11297 (March 14, 2018).
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the VA is modifying the system of records entitled, “Blood Donor Information-VA” (04VA10P4D) as set forth in the
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Comments may be submitted through
Stephania Griffin, VHA Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (704) 245-2492 (Note: this is not a toll-free number).
VA is amending the system of records by revising the System Name; System Number; System Location; System Manager; Categories of Records in the System; Records Source Categories; Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System; Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records; Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records; and Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards. VA is republishing the system notice in its entirety.
The System Name is being updated from “Blood Donor Information-VA” to “Blood Product and Information-VA”
The System Number is being updated from 04VA10P4D to 04VA10 to reflect the current VHA organizational routing symbol.
The System Location is being updated to include “HPC (stem cells) records are maintained at the South Texas VA Health Care System.” The System Manager is updated to replace “Chief Consultant, Diagnostic Services (10P4D)”, with “Executive Director, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. Telephone number 858-642-3511 (this is not a toll-free number).”
The Purpose of the System, Categories of Records in the System, and Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records are being modified to include “HPC” or “HPC (stem cells).”
The Records Source Categories is being updated to include: “5. HPC counts.” “6. VA information systems, such as the Veterans Health Information System and Technology Architecture (VistA).”
Routine Use #2 is being updated to reflect the following language, “Referral to Non-VA Health Care Provider: To a non-VA health care provider or institution when VA refers a patient for medical service. These disclosures may be made: blood availability, location, quantity on hand, and blood type for use by the area donor collection coordinators to answer and fill requests from health care facilities in need of type-specific blood. For HPC products, disclosure from bone marrow transplant physicians for the availability, transfer and infusion of stored products.”
Routine Use #5 is being deleted and updated as it is duplicative of Routine Use #6. Routine Use #5 is being updated to state “Data Breach Response and Remediation, for VA: To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”
Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records being updated to remove “Section VIII-Laboratory Services of the VHA Records Control Schedule 10-1, Item number 113-31/36, National Archives and Records Administration under the National Archives Job No. N1-15-02-04.” This section is being updated to state, “The records are disposed of in accordance with VHA Records Control Schedule 10-1, Item Number 7100.1-7100.27.”
Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards is being updated to remove, “Employees file records and file records of public figures or otherwise sensitive medical record files are stored in separate locked files,” from #1.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Kurt D. DelBene, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on May 10, 2023 for publication.
“Blood Product and Information-VA” (04VA10)
Unclassified.
Blood donor records are maintained at VA health care facilities that currently or previously collected blood donations. Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells (HPC) (stem cells) records are maintained at the South Texas VA Health Care System. Addresses are listed in VA Appendix I of the biennial publication of Privacy Act Issuances.
Executive Director, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Department of
38 U.S.C. 501; 21 CFR 200-299, 600-680; 42 CFR 493.1105.
The purpose of these records is to track donor and patient medical history, donation intervals, results of infectious disease testing, as well as reporting positive or abnormal test results for HPC and/or blood components produced from the donation.
These records include information on individuals who donate or have donated blood or HPC products at a VHA health care facility or blood bank for patient care.
The blood donor and HPC records may contain sufficient information (
Record sources include the following:
1. Blood donor. 2. Private hospitals and local blood banks. 3. Private physicians. 4. Non-VA Laboratories. 5. HPC counts. 6. VA information systems, such as VistA.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. Blood or HPC Source: To Federal, State, local, and tribal medical facilities regarding the source from which blood or HPC was received. Such requests may be initiated by a qualified medical practitioner in the event that a donor's or patient's medical condition warrants it.
2. Non-VA Health Care Provider: To a non-VA health care provider or institution when VA refers a patient for medical service. These disclosures may be made: blood availability, location, quantity on hand, and blood type for use by the area donor collection coordinators to answer and fill requests from health care facilities in need of type-specific blood. For HPC products, disclosure from bone marrow transplant physicians for the availability, transfer and infusion of stored products.
3. Law Enforcement: To a Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law, provided that the disclosure is limited to information that, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature. The disclosure of the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents from VA records under this routine use must also comply with the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5701.
4. Congress: To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
5. Data Breach Response and Remediation, for VA: To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
6. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA): To NARA in records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906, or other functions authorized by laws and policies governing NARA operations and VA records management responsibilities.
7. Contractors: To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement or other assignment for VA, when reasonably necessary to accomplish an agency function related to the records.
8. Department of Justice (DOJ), Litigation, Administrative Proceeding: To DOJ, or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which VA is authorized to appear, when:
(a) VA or any component thereof;
(b) Any VA employee in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any VA employee in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where VA determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components is a party to such proceedings or has an interest in such proceedings, and VA determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the proceedings.
9. Federal Agencies, Fraud and Abuse: To other Federal agencies in order to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
10. Data Breach Response and Remediation, for Another Federal Agency: To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
Records are maintained on paper documents and electronic media.
1. All manual records in this system are retrieved by name and social security number or other unique identifier of donor, cross-indexed by blood type. 2. All electronic records in this system are retrieved by name, unique identifier, social security number, blood type, antibodies and date of last donation.
The records in this system are retained and disposed of in accordance with the schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, VHA Records Control Schedule 10-1, Item number 7100.1-7100.27.
1. Access to VA working space and record storage areas is restricted to VA employees on a “need-to-know” basis. Generally, VA file areas are locked after normal duty hours and are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service. Strict control measures are enforced to ensure that disclosure is limited to a “need to know” basis.
2. Strict control measures are enforced to ensure that access to and disclosure of all records, including electronic files, are limited to VA employees whose official duties warrant access to those files. The system recognizes authorized employees by a series of individually unique passwords/codes and the employees are limited to only that information in the file which is needed in the performance of their official duties.
Individuals seeking information on the existence and content of records in this system pertaining to them should contact the system manager in writing as indicated above or inquire in person at the VA health care facility where medical service was provided or volunteered. A request for access to records must contain the requester's full name, address, telephone number, be signed by the requester, and describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable VA personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort.
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records in this system pertaining to them should contact the system manager in writing as indicated above or inquire in person at the VA health care facility where they normally receive their care. A request to contest or amend records must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it and the proposed amendment to the record.
Generalized notice is provided by the publication of this notice. For specific notice, see Record Access Procedure, above.
None.
66 FR 20860 (April 25, 2001), 73 FR 74574 (December 8, 2008), 80 FR 58815 (September 30, 2015).
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (OPIA), Office of Tribal Government Relations (OTGR), is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee on Tribal and Indian Affairs (“the Committee”) to represent the following Indian Health Service (IHS) Areas: Bemidji; California; Great Plains; Nashville; Navajo; Tucson.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on August 1, 2023.
All nomination packages (Application, should be mailed to the Office of Tribal Government Relations, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 915H (075), Washington, DC 20420 or emailed to:
Ms. Stephanie Birdwell and/or Mr. Peter Vicaire, Office of Tribal Government Relations, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Ste. 915H (075), Washington, DC 20420. A copy of the Committee charter can be obtained by contacting
In carrying out the duties set forth, the Committee responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Identify for the Department evolving issues of relevance to Indian tribes, tribal organizations and Native American Veterans relating to programs and services of the Department;
(2) Propose clarifications, recommendations and solutions to address issues raised at tribal, regional and national levels, especially regarding any tribal consultation reports;
(3) Provide a forum for Indian tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian organizations, Native Hawaiian organizations and the Department to discuss issues and proposals for changes to Department regulations, policies and procedures;
(4) Identify priorities and provide advice on appropriate strategies for tribal consultation and urban Indian organizations conferring on issues at the tribal, regional, or national levels;
(5) Ensure that pertinent issues are brought to the attention of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian organizations and Native Hawaiian organizations in a timely manner, so that feedback can be obtained;
(6) Encourage the Secretary to work with other Federal agencies and Congress so that Native American Veterans are not denied the full benefit of their status as both Native Americans and Veterans;
(7) Highlight contributions of Native American Veterans in the Armed Forces;
(8) Make recommendations on the consultation policy of the Department on tribal matters;
(9) Support a process to develop an urban Indian organization confer policy to ensure the Secretary confers, to the maximum extent practicable, with urban Indian organizations; and
(10) With the Secretary's written approval, conduct other duties as recommended by the Committee.
(1) At least one member of each of the 12 IHS service areas is represented in the membership of the Committee nominated by Indian tribes or tribal organization.
(2) At least one member of the Committee represents the Native Hawaiian Veteran community nominated by a Native Hawaiian Organization.
(3) At least one member of the Committee represents urban Indian organizations nominated by a national urban Indian organization.
(4) Not fewer than half of the members are Veterans, unless the Secretary determines that an insufficient number of qualified Veterans were nominated.
(5) No member of the Committee may be an employee of the Federal Government.
In accordance with Public Law 116-315, the Secretary determines the number and terms of service for members of the Committee, which are appointed by the Secretary, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed a term of two years. Additionally, a member may be reappointed for one additional term at the Secretary's discretion.
(1) Diversity in professional and personal qualifications;
(2) Experience in military service and military deployments (please identify your Branch of Service and Rank);
(3) Current work with Veterans;
(4) Committee subject matter expertise; and
(5) Experience working in large and complex organizations.
Nominations should be typewritten (one nomination per nominator). Nomination package should include: (1) a letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
The individual selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. All members will receive travel expenses and a per diem allowance in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations for any travel made in connection with their duties as members of the Committee.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, males & females, racial and ethnic minority groups, and Veterans with disabilities are given consideration for membership. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
(a) issuing guidance and convening sponsors of employee benefit plans and health insurers to clarify contraception coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act;
(b) expanding walk-in contraceptive care services for active duty service members and other Military Health System beneficiaries;
(c) issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to improve access to affordable contraception for certain dependents of veterans;
(d) providing additional funding to bolster training, develop and expand telehealth infrastructure and capacity, and provide technical assistance for clinics funded under Title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300
(e) strengthening the inclusion of family planning providers in insurance networks for qualified health plans under the Affordable Care Act;
(f) issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to provide a new pathway for women to access contraceptives when their private health coverage is exempt from covering this benefit;
(g) issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to strengthen privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936, as amended by Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009), by proposing to prohibit doctors, other healthcare providers, and health plans from using or disclosing individuals' protected health information related to lawful reproductive healthcare, such as contraception use, under certain circumstances;
(h) issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to ensure healthcare providers that receive Federal financial assistance do not deny healthcare, including contraception, on the basis of any ground protected by Federal law; and
(i) reminding Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centers of their obligations to provide family planning services to patients consistent with Federal requirements.
(b) The Secretaries shall consider additional actions, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to promote increased access to affordable over-the-counter contraception, including emergency contraception.
(a) expand access to affordable family planning services and supplies across the Medicaid program, including by identifying and disseminating best practices for providing high-quality family planning services and supplies, including through Medicaid-managed care; and
(b) improve coverage and payment for contraceptives for Medicare beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D plans.
(b) To promote access to affordable, high-quality contraception across Federal healthcare programs and relevant human services programs, including through Title X clinics, HRSA-funded health centers, and the Indian Health Service, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider taking actions, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to:
(c) The Secretary of Labor shall identify best practices for making affordable, high-quality contraception available to health plan enrollees, participants, and beneficiaries to share with employers and organizations that sponsor private health coverage.
(d) The Secretary of Education shall convene institutions of higher education to share best practices for making affordable, high-quality contraception available, as well as ways to raise awareness of options for accessing contraception.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.