Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Community Living Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission” or “we”), with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”), is adopting jointly issued amendments to the Commission's existing Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Members and Employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Supplemental Standards”). This rule amends the existing Supplemental Standards jointly issued by SEC and OGE, supplements the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (“OGE Standards”) issued by OGE, and is necessary and appropriate to address ethical issues unique to the SEC. Specifically, the Commission is prohibiting employee ownership of sector funds that have a stated policy of concentrating their investments in entities directly regulated by the Commission; revising transaction and reporting requirements for certain assets that pose a low risk of conflicts of interest or appearance concerns; permitting employees to comply with reporting obligations by authorizing their financial institutions to transmit information on behalf of employees about their covered securities transactions and holdings data through an approved automated compliance system; clarifying that the limitation on purchasing securities that are part of an initial public offering (IPO) until seven days after the IPO also applies to direct listings of securities; correcting certain technical matters; and adjusting its transaction and reporting requirements to provide the flexibility necessary to implement an automated compliance system.
This final rule is effective March 29, 2024.
Jay Bragga, Office of the Ethics Counsel, (202) 551-5170, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1050.
The Commission is adopting amendments to 5 CFR 4401.102 (Rule 102), its Supplemental Standards.
On August 7, 1992, OGE published the OGE Standards.
Section 2635.105 of the OGE Standards authorizes an agency, with the concurrence and joint issuance of OGE, to adopt agency-specific supplemental regulations that are necessary and appropriate to properly implement its ethics program. The Commission previously adopted supplemental regulations—found at 5 CFR part 4401—in 2010 with the concurrence and joint issuance of OGE.
As discussed in the Proposing Release, the Commission, with OGE's concurrence, has determined that the following revisions to the supplemental regulations are necessary and appropriate for successful implementation of the SEC's ethics program considering its unique programs and operations. The Commission, with the concurrence of OGE, proposed to amend its Supplemental Standards to (1) prohibit employee ownership of sector funds that have a stated policy of concentrating investments in entities directly regulated by the Commission (referred to herein as “Financial Industry Sector Funds”), (2) eliminate pre-clearance, reporting, and holding period requirements for certain diversified investments (referred to herein as “Permissible Diversified Investment Funds”), (3) enhance consistency, timeliness, and accountability in employee reporting of purchases, sales, acquisitions, and dispositions of securities through automated reporting by having employees authorize their financial institutions to transmit information on behalf of employees about their covered securities transactions and holdings data through a third-party automated compliance application, (4) clarify that the limitation on purchasing securities that are part of an initial public offering (“IPO”) until seven days after the IPO also applies to direct listings of securities, and (5) make other structural and technical corrections to the regulations. The Proposing Release invited public comments, to be submitted on or before March 31, 2023. The Commission received approximately ninety comment letters. After carefully considering the comments received on the proposal, the Commission, with the concurrence of OGE, is adopting the proposal with certain modifications.
The Commission proposed amending § 4401.102(c)(1) to explicitly prohibit employee ownership of certain Financial Industry Sector Funds by expanding the scope of “entities directly regulated by the Commission” to include registered investment companies, common investment trusts of a bank, companies exempt in part or in total from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or other pooled investment vehicles that have a stated policy of concentrating their investments in entities directly regulated by the Commission.
As discussed in the Proposing Release, the existing rule prohibits
The Commission received numerous comments in favor of the proposal to prohibit ownership of Financial Industry Sector Funds.
For example, one commenter noted that because the SEC regulates the industry in which Financial Industry Sector Funds predominately invest, an SEC employee who invests in these funds could be seen as having a financial interest in the success of the very companies they are tasked with regulating, which could potentially lead to bias in regulatory decision-making or the perception of such bias.
Another commenter called the amendment “an essential step in ensuring that employees of the SEC can maintain the utmost trust and transparency with the public,” agreeing that the amendment would “help avoid conflicts and appearance concerns with employee ownership of sector funds that invest in entities the SEC directly regulates,” and “mitigate any actual or perceived conflicts and appearance concerns.”
Another commenter stated that the amendment appropriately brings Financial Industry Sector Funds within the definition of “entities directly regulated by the Commission” to account for the high risk of conflict posed by Financial Industry Sector Funds, noting that the amendment “recognizes that Commission employees owning financial industry sector funds may pose a substantial risk of conflicting with Commission work,” and pointing out that “Commission employees are uniquely situated to obtain material nonpublic information about the Commission's activities.”
The Commission received several comments opposing the Financial Industry Sector Fund prohibition. In general, commenters argued that the risk of conflict is not so substantial as to impact the mission of the agency, that the proposal does not mitigate any known risk, that the requirement to divest should depend on the employee's role at the Commission, and that absent actual conflict, “optics” is not an appropriate rationale to prohibit employee ownership of such funds.
For example, one commenter stated that the proposal does not mitigate any known risks and called the 90-day divesture requirement outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations “an unreasonably short time frame” that is likely to result in significant tax consequences and disrupt the diversity of investment portfolios.”
Another commenter echoed similar concerns, arguing that the SEC's proposal to ban Financial Industry Sector Funds “isn't mitigating any known risk.”
Another commenter suggested that the prohibition on owning Financial Industry Sector Funds be more narrowly tailored and questioned why the Commission applies uniform personal trading regulations to employees in different divisions and roles. The commenter also asked why the trading restrictions are applied to spouses. The commenter disagreed with being “forced to sell a sector ETF that numerous other Chairs and Ethics Offices didn't find problematic,” and found it puzzling that they would have to divest and be faced with the choice of either hiring an accountant to manage
The Commission has carefully considered the comments received and is adopting § 4401.102(c)(1) as proposed. The President, through Executive Order 12,674, as modified, and OGE through 5 CFR 2635.105, have authorized agencies to prohibit employees, their spouses and minor children from holding certain investments based on the agency's determination that the acquisition or holding of such financial interests would cause a reasonable person to question the impartiality and objectivity with which agency programs are administered.
As described in the Proposing Release, the Commission is responsible for regulating the trading of securities, investigating securities fraud and manipulations, requiring registration of brokers, dealers, and investment advisers, and supervising the activities of entities it regulates for compliance with the securities laws.
As explained in the Proposing Release, the Commission proposed to expand the prohibition to Financial Industry Sector Funds to avoid conflicts and appearance concerns with employee ownership of sector funds that invest in entities the SEC directly regulates such as registered broker dealers and investment advisers. Doing so will assure the public that Commission employees are not profiting from the SEC's unique access to material information. The final amendment is appropriately tailored to this risk by focusing on only investments in the financial services industry that are regulated by the Commission.
Moreover, the Commission finds it appropriate to extend the current prohibited holdings regulation to prevent the incongruous result under the current rules that an SEC employee is prohibited from owning a single share of a directly regulated entity but could theoretically hold an unlimited value in a Financial Industry Sector Fund that concentrates holdings in directly regulated entities. Both cases present similar conflict of interest concerns. The final amendment prohibiting employee ownership of Financial Industry Sector Funds therefore underscores the Commission's commitment to upholding the public's trust to oversee the U.S. capital markets and to taking appropriate steps to eliminate potential conflicts of interest, actual or perceived.
Finally, as noted in the Proposing Release, Congress authorized OGE and the Internal Revenue Service to defer capital gains taxes that arise because of the divestiture of property when it is reasonably necessary to comply with Federal conflict of interest statutes, regulations, rules, or Executive orders, including the Supplemental Standards.
As discussed in the Proposing Release, the SEC's existing supplemental regulations require employees to pre-clear all securities transactions and to confirm securities transactions by reporting them to the SEC within five business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction. This current requirement applies to all securities not explicitly exempted, including diversified mutual funds and other diversified investment products that pose little or no conflicts of interest for members and employees. These diversified investment products, referred to herein as “Permissible Diversified Investment Funds,” include diversified registered investment companies (including open and closed-end mutual funds and unit investment trusts), money market funds, as defined in 17 CFR 270.2a-7 (Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7), 529 plans, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 529, and diversified pooled investment funds held in employee benefit plans or pension plans.
In order to shift agency ethics compliance resources to better focus on relatively higher-risk trading and reporting of equities and the detection of any prohibited holdings, the Commission proposed amending 5 CFR 4401 by adding a new paragraph (g)(1)(vi) to eliminate the pre-clearance, reporting, and holding requirements for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds and to modify existing paragraphs (c)(2) and (6), and paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), to reflect the changes regarding such funds.
The Commission received several comment letters in support of the proposed amendment from both employees and the general public.
Another commenter supported the change because the amendment promotes the efficient allocation of resources and because “these funds pose minimal conflict of interest risks,” and “the elimination of requirements . . . relieves the unnecessary burden of the SEC's members and employees.”
The Commission received a number of comment letters opposing the amendments removing requirements as to Permissible Diversified Investment Funds.
The Commission has carefully considered the comments received and is adopting § 4401.102(g)(1)(vi) as proposed. The SEC's existing supplemental regulations require employees to pre-clear all securities transactions and to confirm securities transactions by reporting them to the SEC within five business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction. This current requirement applies to all securities not explicitly exempted, including diversified mutual funds and other diversified investment products that pose minimal risk or no conflicts of interest for members and employees.
To the extent that such funds qualify as diversified mutual funds or diversified unit investment trusts in accordance with 5 CFR 2640.201(a), OGE has already provided broad exemptions from the criminal financial conflict of interest law, 18 U.S.C. 208, that permit employees to participate in particular matters that could affect the underlying holdings of such funds or the funds themselves.
Currently, under the Supplemental Standards members and employees are required to report transactions of securities to the Commission within five business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction so that ethics officials can reconcile precleared trades in accordance with 5 CFR 4401.102(f). Section 4401.102(f) also requires employees to submit duplicate statements for every account containing reportable securities to the Designated Agency Ethics Official (“DAEO”) according to such procedures required by the DAEO. These requirements constitute additional supplemental confidential reporting requirements authorized by OGE pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (“EIGA”) (codified at 5 U.S.C. 13109), which permits OGE (and agencies, subject to OGE approval) to impose additional confidential financial disclosure requirements on officers and employees of the executive branch. Reporting is currently conducted by members and employees through the Commission's Personal Trading Compliance System and relies on employees to manually confirm and also provide evidence of transactions through submission of brokerage or other financial institution account statements.
The Commission proposed to automate the existing reporting process by amending 5 CFR 4401.102(f) to authorize OEC to collect covered securities transactions and holdings data directly from financial institutions through a third-party automated electronic system to satisfy the requirements to report securities holdings and transaction information. The Commission also proposed to revise transaction reporting deadlines to
The proposal to authorize the SEC to collect reportable transactions and holdings via a third-party automated system elicited numerous responses from commenters.
The Commission received several comments in support of the proposal.
Another commenter stated that the proposal “is definitely an enhancement compared to manual reporting of securities transactions,” as “submitting manually has the downside of being a burden and is vulnerable to human error.”
Yet another commenter supported the amendment, noting that “[i]t just eliminates a report that can be done either incorrectly or fraudulently,” and expressed appreciation for “the concessions for the people that would experience undue hardship,” which “make it so much easier to adopt the proposed changes.”
The Commission received numerous comments opposing an automated compliance system. In general, commenters questioned the Commission's legal authority to implement such a system, expressed concerns over privacy and security, and noted the burden it would place on employees, their spouses, and their minor children.
The Commission received several comments arguing that the SEC lacks the legal authority to implement a direct data feed reporting requirement for members and employees, as well as their spouses and minor children.
For example, one commenter argued that the proposal is “contrary to the law,” asserting that 5 U.S.C. 13109 “simply does not authorize” the proposed collection of covered securities transactions and holdings data from financial institutions through a third-party automated compliance system.
Another commenter stated that “[t]he proposed rule seeks to require me to give an undisclosed third-party direct access to my financial accounts,” arguing that neither 5 U.S.C. 13109 nor 5 CFR 2634.103 “appears to give the SEC the broad reach it seeks.”
Many commenters expressed concerns regarding cyber security and privacy issues such as the collection of sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), the lack of detail in the proposal regarding the information security requirements of any third-party system used, and the potential for breaches of a third-party automated system that could result in misuse of sensitive financial information of SEC employees and their immediate family members.
For example, one commenter provided examples of prior government data breaches and argued that under the proposed rule, staff would lack any mechanism to safeguard their confidential information and that the financial data of Commission employees would potentially be susceptible to cybersecurity breaches.
Another commenter questioned the necessity of such an automated system when employees are already required to pre-clear and report securities transactions and “also annually submit (with optional account number redaction) statements that contain all of our securities transactions for ourselves and covered family members over the preceding years.”
Some commenters expressed skepticism in the ability of a contractor to appropriately safeguard sensitive financial information,
For example, one commenter asserted that the Proposing Release did not adequately address how the Commission would ensure the security of a third-party system.
As another example, one commenter expressed concerns about the potential security vulnerability of a third-party system in light of past incidents experienced by Federal agencies, Wall Street institutions, and service providers.
Commenters also expressed concerns over applicable policies when their brokerage firm(s) or other financial institution(s) cannot or will not transmit transaction and account information through a third-party trading compliance system. In particular, commenters asked whether employees, their spouses, or their minor children would have to close accounts held at those nonparticipating institutions.
For example, one commenter noted the possibility that certain firms, such as retirement plans or small brokers, may have trouble providing the data for employees to comply with this requirement.
Another commenter expressed the view that it is unreasonable to expect Commission employees to ensure that any broker-dealer or other relevant financial institution takes the steps necessary to provide transaction and holdings data to OEC.
Another commenter asked what the policy would be if a brokerage firm does not wish to transfer data directly to the SEC, stating that employees “should not be forced to close the accounts. Not all brokers may have ability to provide data to [a] 3rd party on periodic basis.”
The Commission has carefully considered the comments received. In consideration of, and to alleviate, the concerns numerous commenters expressed regarding cybersecurity and privacy, the Commission has determined not to adopt the proposal that would have authorized mandatory use of an automated third-party compliance system. In a change from the proposal, the Commission's final rules (1) authorize the use of either an internal or third-party automated compliance system, and (2) permit rather than require employees to use an automated compliance system to comply with the reporting requirements of paragraphs 5 CFR 4401.102(f)(1) and (f)(2), which require employees to report and certify securities holdings, transactions, and duplicate statements for accounts holding covered securities. In light of these modifications, the Commission is not adopting the proposed amendments to the transaction reporting deadlines and finds it necessary to maintain the existing five-day transaction certification requirement in paragraph 4401.102(f)(2), and the existing requirement in paragraph 4401.102(f)(1)(ii) to submit duplicate account statements, for employees who elect to manually report information to the DAEO.
Specifically, the Commission is not adopting the following proposed paragraph from proposed section 4401.102(f)(4): “The DAEO may require members and employees to comply with the reporting requirements in this section by authorizing their brokerage or financial institution(s) to provide automatic transmission of brokerage statements and transaction information through a third-party automated compliance system. The DAEO shall permit a member or employee to provide the required information through another means if they cannot obtain consent from their brokerage or financial institution to use the third-party automated compliance system.” In place of this language, the Commission is adopting the following new paragraph 4401.102(f)(4): “A member or employee may comply with the reporting requirements set forth in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section by authorizing the transmission of account statements, holdings and transaction information from an employee's brokerage or financial institution(s) to the DAEO through a Commission approved, automated internal or third-party compliance system.”
These modifications will allow the Commission to continue to improve the efficiency, accuracy and effectiveness of its compliance program by providing authority for employees to utilize either an internal system, as some commenters suggested,
The Commission has consulted with OGE regarding the SEC's authority to have members and employees comply with the reporting requirements in 5 CFR 4401.102(f) through an internal or
The EIGA places responsibility on OGE as the “supervising ethics office” to interpret the EIGA for the executive branch.
OGE's regulations also permit agencies to establish alternative and supplemental confidential disclosures, through separate regulations jointly issued with OGE, that go beyond the requirements imposed under the executive-branch wide regulations.
The Commission also received comments concerning the collection of information related to an employee's spouse and unemancipated minor children. As set out in the current existing Supplemental Standards, subject to appropriate exceptions, employees are already required to report securities transactions and duplicate account information for the accounts of a spouse or unemancipated minor pursuant to 5 CFR 4401.102(f).
The Commission received several comments concerning the authority of the SEC to collect account information such as account numbers and the protection of that information once collected.
While this information must be collected for members and employees to voluntarily enroll in the system, the Commission notes that all information collected by the Commission pursuant to 5 CFR 4401 is subject to the confidentiality restrictions on release set out in the EIGA (codified at 5 U.S.C. 13109), and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. First, the Commission notes that the information collected pursuant to § 4401.102(f) is subject 5 U.S.C. 13109 and to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). Section 13109(a)(2) provides that reports filed pursuant to section 13109(a)(1) “shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to the public.”
The Commission acknowledges commenters' concerns with respect to security risks surrounding an automated third-party compliance system. As noted above, use of an automated trading compliance system will be voluntary, and any information collected is subject to the confidentiality restrictions on release set out in 5 U.S.C. 13109, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The system itself must comport with all applicable privacy and cybersecurity standards including, but not limited to, the Federal Information Security Management Act (“FISMA”). Consistent with those laws, SEC employees, ethics officials, and any third-party contractor will be limited in the information that they can access, and account numbers will be accessible to only those within the system who have appropriately established role-based permissions. Accordingly, the Commission will take steps to ensure that such information is not accessible to any person other than as necessary and appropriate to carry out the functions and purposes of an automated system, to ensure compliance with the ethics rules and regulations that apply to members and employees, or as permitted by the Privacy Act, OGE/GOVT-2, and other applicable rules and regulations.
While the technical requirements of any automated compliance system are yet to be determined, establishment of the system will need to follow various procedural steps and authorization processes, such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation procedural requirements and the FISMA Authority to Operate (“ATO”) security authorization processes. Implementation of a third-party compliance system will depend on the system and the third-party vendor meeting rigorous authorization, privacy, and security protocols to comply with multiple Federal Government and SEC standards, including but not limited to data encryption requirements. Further, SEC IT systems must adhere to strict FISMA requirements and SEC Information Security and Privacy Controls, which are based on the controls outlined in NIST 800-53 under its Risk Management Framework. In addition, depending on system architecture, the system data provider may be required to meet the standards of the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (“FedRAMP”). A FedRAMP authorization is based on the same NIST 800-53 controls and yet is an even more rigorous process due to its standards regulating and monitoring the cybersecurity of cloud services. FedRAMP is a government-wide program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. The FedRAMP certification process involves a comprehensive assessment of the system's security controls, which includes vulnerability scans and penetration testing. Once certified, a system is continuously monitored and audited regularly to ensure that it remains in compliance with FedRAMP's stringent security standards.
Information security is a critical prerequisite for a third-party automated compliance system. Throughout any future acquisition process, privacy controls and information security will be an essential factor in determining whether the Commission proceeds with such a system. OEC will continue to engage with Commission stakeholders, including the Office of Information Technology and Office of Acquisitions, to ensure privacy and security concerns are addressed.
The Commission has considered the comments reflecting concerns about the burdens mandatory use of an automated compliance system would impose on employees, particularly if an employee's brokerage firm or other financial institution is unable or unwilling to provide the envisioned data feeds. In consideration of the comments, the Commission believes voluntary use of an automated compliance system will mitigate these concerns.
Because the Commission is adopting a rule to permit rather than require employees to use an automated compliance system, the Commission has determined it is necessary to maintain the existing requirement under 5 CFR 4401.102(f)(1)(ii) for members and employees to “submit duplicate statements for every account containing reportable securities to the DAEO according to such procedures required by the DAEO,” for employees who will continue to manually submit required information. This modification clarifies that employees who choose not to report via an automated compliance system will still have to submit the required account statements to the DAEO manually.
Similarly, the Commission is modifying the proposed language of 5 CFR 4401.102(f)(2) to maintain the existing requirement for members and employees to report all purchases, sales, acquisitions, or dispositions of securities “within five (5) business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction,” while maintaining the DAEO's discretion to determine the manner and schedule of reporting for employees who elect to use an automated compliance system. This adjustment clarifies that employees who manually report required information remain subject to the existing five business day transaction reporting deadline, while also providing the necessary flexibility for the DAEO to adjust reporting schedules as appropriate for an automated compliance system.
Members and employees of the Commission are currently prohibited from purchasing a security in an IPO for seven calendar days after the IPO is effective, except for IPOs of shares in a registered investment company or other publicly traded or publicly available collective investment fund. The Commission proposed to amend 5 CFR 4401.102(c)(2) to expand the limitation on purchasing a security in an IPO for seven calendar days after the IPO is effective by also prohibiting a member or employee from purchasing securities that are directly listed to an exchange for seven calendar days after the direct listing effective date. The Commission also proposed to remove the current exception to the prohibition on purchasing within seven calendar days for IPO shares in a registered investment company or publicly traded or publicly available collective investment fund because the Commission's proposed amendment regarding the exception for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds in paragraph (g) would cover IPO shares in a registered investment
Several commenters expressed support for the proposed amendment.
Another commenter pointed out the “common traits” between IPOs and direct listings and agreed that direct listings “should be treated with the same existing rule” applied to IPOs.
No commenters opposed this proposed amendment.
The Commission has carefully considered the comments received and is adopting § 4401.102(c)(2) as proposed. Members and employees of the Commission are currently prohibited from purchasing a security in an IPO for seven calendar days after the IPO is effective, except for IPOs of shares in a registered investment company or other publicly traded or publicly available collective investment fund. As noted in the Proposing Release, the Commission believes that securities that are directly listed on an exchange present the same appearance concerns and risks as securities offered in a traditional IPO, given that direct listings are typically accompanied by the filing of a registration statement, as in a traditional IPO. For that reason, the Commission is expanding the limitation found at paragraph (c)(2) of the regulation to prohibit a member or employee from purchasing securities that are directly listed to an exchange for seven calendar days after the direct listing effective date. The seven calendar days waiting period for purchasing directly listed securities ensures that employees do not use, or appear to use, material, non-public information to their advantage in purchasing such securities.
The Commission proposed to amend § 4401.102(h) to reflect that the Office of the Ethics Counsel is no longer part of the Office of General Counsel. We did not receive any comment on this proposed amendment, and the Commission is adopting 5 CFR 4401.102(h) as proposed.
Further, the Commission has determined to modify the waiver provision at 5 CFR 4401.102 (h)(1) and (2), as proposed, and is therefore adopting 5 CFR 4401.102 (h)(1) and (2) with modifications. As a technical matter, the Commission finds it appropriate to adjust the language of the waiver provision to more closely align with the language used elsewhere in the rule. Currently, the proposal provides for “waiver of the prohibitions or limitations that would otherwise apply to a securities holding or transaction . . .” The term “limitation” is not found in the text of the rule. The text of the rule refers to various prohibitions, restrictions and requirements. Thus, to more accurately reflect what may be eligible for a waiver, the Commission is adopting a technical correction to remove the word “limitations” from 5 CFR 4401.102 (h)(1) and (2) and replace it with “restrictions and requirements.” Further, in order to correct a grammatical error in 5 CFR 4401.102(b)(2), the Commission is adding “any” to “. . . the purchase or sale of security:” so that the text of paragraph (b)(2) reads: “Members and employees are prohibited from recommending or suggesting to any person the purchase or sale of
Finally, for clarity and to conform with
The Commission finds, in accordance with section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),
At least two commenters suggested that the APA
The PRA imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies in connection with the conducting or sponsoring of any “collection of information.”
The Commission is sensitive to the economic effects of its rules, including the costs and benefits that result from its rules.
We discuss below the potential benefits, costs, and economic effects of the four significant categories of final amendments to the Supplemental Standards: (1) prohibiting employees from holding Financial Industry Sector Funds; (2) eliminating the pre-clearance, reporting, and holding period requirements for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds; (3) authorizing the use of either an internal or third-party automated compliance system and permitting employees to use an automated compliance system to comply with the reporting requirements, and maintaining the existing five-day transaction certification requirement and the existing requirement to submit duplicate account statements for employees who elect to manually report information to the DAEO; and (4) prohibiting purchases of direct listed assets for seven calendar days after the direct listing effective date. In addition, the adopted amendments make certain definitional and technical changes that we believe would not have a substantial economic effect.
The Commission is adopting amendments to explicitly prohibit employee ownership of Financial Industry Sector Funds by expanding the scope of “entities directly regulated by the Commission,” and excluding Financial Industry Sector Funds from the exception for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds. The existing rules prohibit members and employees from purchasing or holding securities of entities directly regulated by the Commission, but do not expressly prohibit Financial Industry Sector Funds focused on entities regulated by the Commission.
The final rule enhances the integrity of capital markets by further guarding against any perception of improper use of nonpublic information by Commission members and employees. Expanding the prohibition to include investments in Financial Industry Sector Funds reduces potential conflicts of interest and bolsters investor confidence in fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Commenters agreed that prohibiting investment by Commission members and employees in Financial Industry Sector Funds would reduce the risk that nonpublic information could be improperly used.
The primary costs of this amendment will be borne mostly by impacted members and employees who currently hold these funds, as they must sell, or otherwise divest, affected assets. We do not have sufficient information to quantify the total effects associated with such divestment. We also expect minimal incremental technical or administrative costs to implement this change under the Commission's existing ethics compliance program.
Some commenters have expressed concerns about the potential costs of divestiture to employees or members. For example, one commenter stated that the divestiture “will likely cause significant tax consequences and also alter the diversity of their holdings.”
The Commission is adopting amendments to eliminate certain procedural requirements for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds by making them exempt from pre-clearance, reporting, and 30-day holding period stipulations under Rule 102(g)(1). Currently, Commission members and employees are required to pre-clear trades in these funds, confirm executed transactions, and hold the assets for at least 30 days before selling.
The final amendments reduce administrative burdens for members and employees, and potentially enable more timely execution of investment decisions in Permissible Diversified Investment Funds. The amendments will also allow the Commission to better focus resources on monitoring holdings and transactions that present more significant ethical concerns. The magnitude of benefits will depend on how the policy change affects individuals' investment choices and portfolios, which is impracticable to predict.
We do not anticipate that the amendments will impose any material costs on the Commission, its members and employees, or the public. Because these diversified funds already qualified for applicable regulatory conflicts exemptions, exempting them from existing procedural requirements is unlikely to meaningfully increase risks of actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Currently, under the Supplemental Standards, the process for collecting covered securities transactions and holdings is internal to the Commission. As described in Section II.C, employees are required to report transactions of securities to the Commission within five business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction so that ethics officials can reconcile pre-cleared trades in accordance with 5 CFR 4401.102(f). Section 4401.102(f) also requires employees to submit duplicate statements for every account containing reportable securities to the DAEO according to such procedures required by the DAEO. Reporting is currently conducted by employees through the Commission's Personal Trading Compliance System and relies on employees to manually confirm and provide evidence of transactions through submission of brokerage or other financial institution account statements. The DAEO has, through internal policy, provided employees with the option to redact from these documents sensitive PII that is not required to be reported. Some commenters noted that the proposing release characterized the current system as “successful” and questioned what, if any, additional benefits the proposed rule would provide beyond the existing requirement.
The Commission proposed to automate the existing reporting process by amending 5 CFR 4401.102(f) to authorize OEC to collect covered securities transactions and holdings data directly from financial institutions through a third-party automated electronic system to satisfy the requirements to report securities holdings and transaction information. The Commission also proposed to revise transaction reporting deadlines to provide necessary flexibility to adjust for securities transactions and holdings data obtained from financial institutions through a third-party automated compliance system by modifying the existing five business day reporting requirement to require all employees to report transactions in the manner, and according to the schedule, required by the DAEO.
In response to the proposed amendments, some commenters noted that automation through a third-party provider is expected to enhance the accuracy of covered securities transactions and holdings data made available to the DAEO.
In response to the concerns commenters expressed regarding cybersecurity and privacy, the Commission is adopting a new paragraph 4401.102(f)(4) that states that “a member or employee may comply with the reporting requirements set forth in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section by authorizing the transmission of account statements, holdings and transaction information from an employee's brokerage or financial institution(s) to the DAEO through a Commission approved, automated internal or third-party compliance system.” In other words, the Commission will implement the automated reporting system on a voluntary basis with Commission employees deciding whether to use the automated system or to continue using the current manual system. For employees who elect to manually report information to the DAEO, the Commission will also maintain the existing five-day transaction certification requirement in paragraph 4401.102(f)(2), and the existing requirement in paragraph 4401.102(f)(1)(ii) to submit duplicate account statements.
The final amendments will benefit Commission employees, and thereby the Commission, by providing them with an additional approach for complying with the Supplemental Standards. Specifically, employees will be permitted to decide how to comply with reporting obligations, either through the current manual system (status quo) or through a Commission-approved, automated internal or third-party compliance system, to the extent that an employee's financial institution is able and willing to provide the envisioned data feeds under an automated system. Employees who elect not to report via an automated compliance system will continue to be required to submit the required account statements to the DAEO manually. Each employee who has both options available will select the option that delivers highest net benefits to that employee. When evaluating whether to comply using an automated system, employees will weigh the benefits of no longer having to manually transmit to the DAEO account statements, holdings, and transaction information against the costs to them of using the automated compliance system. These costs to employees include initial costs to learn about the automated system and to authorize their financial institutions to transmit covered securities holdings and transactions data to the DAEO through the automated system.
Under the final amendments, Commission employees will continue to be responsible for ensuring that their covered securities transactions and holdings data are reported “in the manner required by the DAEO.” Some commenters noted
The final amendments will also benefit the Commission by allowing it to continue to improve the efficiency, accuracy and effectiveness of its compliance program by providing authority for employees to utilize an automated system. The Commission will also gain additional experience and data regarding the benefits and costs of an automated compliance system. As described above, an automated system is expected to enhance the accuracy and timeliness of covered securities transactions and holdings data made available to the DAEO, enhancing the DAEO's ability to monitor Commission employees' compliance with the Supplemental Standards and promptly remedy any compliance violations detected.
The Commission will incur direct costs from implementing and overseeing the new automated system in addition to the costs of maintaining the manual reporting system. As some commenters noted,
The Commission is adopting an amendment to Rule 102(c)(2) to prohibit members and employees from purchasing securities directly listed on an exchange for seven calendar days following the effective date of the direct listing.
The adopted restriction aims to further safeguard against any perception of improper use of nonpublic information by Commission members and employees. Expanding the prohibition to include directly listed securities is intended to reduce potential conflicts of interest and bolster investor confidence in the integrity of markets.
The primary costs of this amendment will be borne by impacted members and employees who will be restricted from trading these securities during the specified period. We do not expect any material direct costs to the Commission or public because of the rule change.
These amendments to the Commission's ethics rules are being adopted pursuant to statutory authority granted to OGE and to the Commission. These include 5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. Ch 131 (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159; 3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547; 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2634.103, 5 CFR 2634.201(f); 5 CFR 2635.905; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.403, 2635.803; 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78w, 77sss, 80a-37, 80b-11.
Administrative practice and procedure, Conflict of interests, Ethical conduct, Government employees, Government ethics, Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the SEC, with the concurrence of OGE, is amending title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter XXXIV, part 4401, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. Ch 131; 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78w, 77sss, 80a-37, 80b-11; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2634.103, 2634.201(f), 2634.905, 2635.105, 2635.403, and 2635.803.
(a)
(b)
(2) Members and employees are prohibited from recommending or suggesting to any person the purchase or sale of any security:
(i) Based on material nonpublic information regarding that security; or
(ii) That the member or employee could not purchase or sell because of the restrictions contained in this section.
(c)
(1) Knowingly purchasing or holding a security or other financial interest in an entity directly regulated by the Commission, including a registered investment company, common investment trust of a bank, company exempt in part or in total from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or other pooled investment vehicle that has a stated policy of concentrating investments in entities directly regulated by the Commission.
(2) Purchasing a security in an initial public offering (“IPO”) or direct listing prior to seven calendar days after the IPO or direct listing effective date;
(3) Purchasing or otherwise carrying securities on margin;
(4) Selling securities short as defined in 17 CFR 242.200(a);
(5) Accepting a loan from, or entering into any other financial relationship with, an entity, institution or other person directly regulated by the Commission if the loan or financial relationship is governed by terms more favorable than would be available in like circumstances to members of the public, except as otherwise permitted by 5 CFR part 2635, subpart B (Gifts from outside sources);
(6) Engaging in transactions involving financial instruments that are derivatives of securities (that is, the value of the security depends on or is derived from, in whole or in part, the value of another security, or a group, or an index of securities); and
(7) Purchasing or selling any security issued by an entity that is:
(i) Under investigation by the Commission;
(ii) A party to a proceeding before the Commission; or
(iii) A party to a proceeding to which the Commission is a party.
(d)
(2) Documentation of the clearance of any transaction pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section shall be prima facie evidence that the member or employee has not knowingly purchased, sold, or held such financial interest in violation of the provisions of paragraph (c)(1), (2), (6), or (7) of this section.
(3) The DAEO shall be responsible for administering the Commission's clearance systems. The DAEO shall maintain a record of securities that members and employees may not purchase or sell, or otherwise hold, because such securities are the subject of the various prohibitions and restrictions contained in this section.
(e)
(2)
(i) Securities sold for ninety percent (90%) or less of the original purchase price; and
(ii) Securities with an initial term of less than six (6) months that are held to term.
(3)
(f)
(i) Report and certify all securities holdings according to the schedule and in the manner required by the DAEO; and
(ii) Submit duplicate account statements for every account containing reportable securities to the DAEO according to such procedures required by the DAEO.
(2) Members and employees must report all purchases, sales, acquisitions, or dispositions of securities within five (5) business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction, or if the member or employee complies with the reporting requirements of this section as authorized in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, in the manner and according to the schedule required by the DAEO.
(3) Any person who receives a conditional offer of employment from the Commission must report all securities holdings after acceptance of that offer and before commencement of employment with the Commission on the form prescribed by the Commission.
(4) A member or employee may comply with the reporting requirements set forth in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section by authorizing the transmission of account statements, holdings, and transaction information from an employee's brokerage or financial institution(s) to the DAEO through a Commission-approved, automated internal or third-party compliance system.
(g)
(i) Securities transactions effected by a member's or employee's spouse on behalf of an entity or person other than the member or employee, the member's or employee's spouse, the member's or employee's unemancipated minor child, or any person for whom the member or employee serves as legal guardian;
(ii) Securities holdings and transactions of a member's or employee's legally separated spouse living apart from the member or employee (including those effected for the benefit of the member's or employee's unemancipated minor child),
(iii) Securities issued by the United States Government or one of its agencies;
(iv) Investments in funds administered by the Thrift Savings Plan or by any retirement plan administered by a Federal Government agency;
(v) Certificates of deposit or other comparable instruments issued by depository institutions subject to Federal regulation and Federal deposit insurance; and
(vi)(A)(
(
(
(
(B) The exemption in this paragraph (g)(1)(vi) does not apply to other investments in pooled investment funds that are exempt from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, including hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, or similar non-registered investment funds.
(2) The following holdings and transactions are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, but these interests must be reported in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section:
(i) The holdings of a trust in which the member or employee (or the member's or employee's spouse, the member's or employee's unemancipated minor child, or person for whom the member or employee serves as legal guardian) is:
(A) Solely a vested beneficiary of an irrevocable trust; or
(B) Solely a vested beneficiary of a revocable trust where the trust instrument expressly directs the trustee to make present, mandatory distributions of trust income or principal; provided, the member or employee did not create the trust, has no power to control, and does not, in fact, control or advise with respect to the holdings and transactions of the trust;
(ii) Acceptance or reinvestment of stock dividends on securities already owned;
(iii) Exercise of a right to convert securities; and
(iv) The acquisition of stock or the acquisition or the exercise of employee stock options, or other comparable instruments, received as compensation from an issuer that is:
(A) The member's or employee's former employer; or
(B) The present or former employer of the member's or employee's spouse.
(h)
(2) Employees may request from the DAEO a waiver of the prohibitions, restrictions, or requirements that would otherwise apply to a securities holding or transaction on the grounds that application of the rule would cause an undue hardship. An employee requests a waiver by submitting a confidential written application to the Commission's Office of the Ethics Counsel in the manner prescribed by the DAEO. In considering a waiver request, the DAEO, or his or her designee, may consult with the employee's supervisors and other Commission personnel as the DAEO in his or her discretion considers necessary.
(3) The Commission or the DAEO, as applicable, will provide written notice of its determination of the waiver request to the requesting member or employee.
(4) The Commission or the DAEO, as applicable, may condition the grant of a waiver under this provision upon the agreement to certain undertakings (such as execution of a written statement of disqualification) to avoid the appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality, and to ensure confidence in the impartiality and objectivity of the Commission. The Commission or DAEO, as applicable, shall note the existence of conditions on the waiver and describe them in reasonable detail in the text of the waiver-request determination.
(5) The grant of a waiver requested pursuant to this section must reflect the judgment that the waiver:
(i) Is necessary to avoid an undue hardship and, under the particular circumstances, application of the prohibition, restriction, or requirement is not necessary to avoid the appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality, or otherwise necessary to ensure confidence in the impartiality and objectivity of the Commission;
(ii) Is consistent with 18 U.S.C. 208 (Acts affecting a personal financial interest), 5 CFR part 2635 (Standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch), and 5 CFR part 2640 (Interpretation, exemptions and waiver guidance concerning 18 U.S.C. 208); and
(iii) Is not otherwise prohibited by law.
(6) The determination of the Commission with respect to a member's request for a waiver is final and binding on the member.
(7) The determination of the DAEO with respect to an employee's request for a waiver may be appealed to the Commission, in accordance with the requirements of 17 CFR 201.430 and 201.431 (Rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's Rule of Practice). The determination of the DAEO or, if appealed, the Commission, is final and binding on the employee.
(8) Notwithstanding the grant of a waiver, a member or employee remains subject to the disqualification requirements of 5 CFR 2635.402 (Disqualifying financial interests) and 5 CFR 2635.502 (Personal and business relationships) with respect to transactions or holdings subject to the waiver.
(i)
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked vertical stabilizer top end cap assemblies. This AD requires an initial and recurring inspections of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly and corrective action if a crack is found, as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA previously sent this AD as an emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 14, 2024. Emergency AD 2024-02-55, issued on January 26, 2024, which contained the requirements of this amendment, was effective with actual notice.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 14, 2024.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 15, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this final rule, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5, CANADA; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone (404) 474-5548; email
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. 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 AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone (404) 474-5548; email
The FAA issued Emergency AD 2024-02-55, dated January 26, 2024 (the emergency AD), to address an unsafe condition on Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The emergency AD requires, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, a detailed visual inspection for a cracked vertical stabilizer top end assembly and replacing a cracked vertical stabilizer top end assembly before further flight.
The emergency AD was prompted by Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-03, dated January 25, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition on Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters, serial numbers 65011 and subsequent. Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 states that there have been multiple occurrences of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly being found cracked, with some cases including the departure of the navigation/very high frequency omni-directional range (VOR)/glide slope antenna and tuning weight from the helicopter during flight. Detailed investigation has identified that the stabilizer top end cap assembly was not designed for the full fatigue spectrum. Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 further states that an investigation determined that if no corrective actions are implemented, there is the potential for the antenna and tuning weight to depart, which could impact and damage the tail rotor, resulting in the loss of directional control of the helicopter. Accordingly, Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 mandates an initial and recurring inspections of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly, and corrective action if a crack is found. Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 states that the corrective actions are interim actions until a permanent solution can be made available for the fleet.
You may examine Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 in the AD docket at
The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the antenna or tuning weight departing from the helicopter and impacting and damaging the tail rotor, resulting in the loss of directional control of the helicopter.
Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 requires, within 10 hours air time, accomplishing a one-time detailed visual inspection of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly for cracking and accomplishing corrective action if cracking is found. Thereafter at
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin 505-24-38, dated January 24, 2024, which specifies procedures for performing a one-time detailed inspection of the top end cap assembly for cracking, provides instructions for replacing a cracked top end cap assembly, and provides instructions for a performing a recurring detailed inspection of the top end cap assembly.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its emergency AD referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 is incorporated by reference in this FAA AD. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the sections titled “Compliance” and “Corrective Actions” in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03. Service information referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 for compliance will be available at
The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2024-02-55, issued on January 26, 2024, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracking of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly could result in loss of the antenna and tuning weight during flight and damage to the tail rotor, which is critical for directional control of the helicopter. As the FAA also has no information pertaining to the quantity of cracked vertical stabilizer top end cap assemblies that may currently exist in the U.S. fleet or how quickly the condition may propagate to failure, the inspections required by this AD must be accomplished within 10 hours TIS followed by repetitive actions at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, with corrective action required before further flight. These conditions still exist, therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 141 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
The initial vertical stabilizer top end assembly inspection takes approximately 2 work-hours with no parts cost for the inspection, for an initial cost of $170 per helicopter and $23,970 for the U.S. fleet.
The recurring vertical stabilizer top end assembly inspections take approximately 3 work-hours with no parts cost for the inspections. Based on these figures, the cost for each inspection is estimated at $255 per helicopter and $35,955 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
If required, replacing a vertical stabilizer top end assembly will take approximately 1 work-hour with parts cost of approximately $125 for a vertical stabilizer top end assembly. Based on these figures, the cost to replace the vertical stabilizer top end assembly is estimated at $210.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-02-55 on January 26, 2024, directly to affected owners and operators. As a result of such actual notice, that emergency AD was effective for those owners and operators on the date it was provided. This AD contains the same requirements as that emergency AD and, for those who did not receive actual notice, is effective on March 14, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-03, dated January 25, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 5532 Vertical stabilizer, plates/skin.
This AD was prompted by multiple occurrences of the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly being found cracked, with some cases including the departure of the navigation/very high frequency omni-directional range (VOR)/glide slope antenna and tuning weight from the helicopter during flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect cracking on the vertical stabilizer top end cap assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the antenna or tuning weight departing from the helicopter and impacting and damaging the tail rotor, resulting in the loss of directional control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2024-03 refers to “air time,” this AD requires replacing those words with “hours time-in-service.”
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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.
For more information about this AD, contact Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone (404) 474-5548; email
(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-03, dated January 25, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-03, contact Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5, Canada; phone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the description of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-97 by
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 16, 2024. 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 this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
On July 25, 2023, the FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-1276 in the
Subsequent to the amendment of Q-97, the FAA identified a safety related issue caused by the similar sounding WP names of the DLAAY WP and the ZJAAY, MD, WP that is located approximately 25 nautical miles from the DLAAY WP. The similar sounding WP names have caused confusion and frequent communication errors between air traffic control and flight crews. To eliminate the confusion and potential future communications errors, the FAA is changing the DLAAY WP name to the BYSEL, MD, WP and keeping the same geographic coordinates for the WP position.
Additionally, since amending Q-97 as noted above, the SAWED, VA, Fix and the KALDA, VA, Fix listed in the route description was changed from a Fix to a WP in the FAA NASR database. Accordingly, this action is updating the type of route point of the SAWED Fix and KALDA Fix in the Q-97 description from being listed as a “Fix” to a “WP”.
Finally, when the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-1276 was published, the geographic coordinates listed for the route points from the TOVAR, FL, WP to the WOPNR, OA, WP were inadvertently repeated for the route points extending from the JEVED, GA, WP to the Presque Isle, ME, VOR/DME. To correct this error, the FAA is correcting the geographic coordinates for the route points extending from the JEVED WP to the Presque Isle VOR/DME to match the FAA's NASR database information for each point.
United States Area Navigation Routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2006 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 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H 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 amending RNAV Route Q-97 by changing the name of the DLAAY, MD, WP to the BYSEL, MD, WP; changing the type of point of the SAWED, VA and KALDA, VA, route points from “Fix” to “WP”; and correcting the geographic coordinates listed for the existing route points from the JEVED, GA, WP to the Presque Isle, ME, VOR/DME.
These editorial amendments to the Q-97 description are made to ensure the route matches the FAA NASR database information and charted depiction of the route. The changed BYSEL WP name, the changed type of route point for the SAWED WP and KALDA WP, and the corrected geographic coordinates for the route points between the JEVED WP and the Presque Isle VOR/DME are listed in the Q-97 description in the regulatory text of this final rule.
Since this action merely involves editorial amendments in the Part 71 description of U.S. RNAV Route Q-97, and does not involve a change in the alignment, dimensions, or operating requirements of that route, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
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
The FAA has determined that these editorial amendment actions of RNAV route Q-97, to match the existing FAA NASR database information and charted route depiction, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
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.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Correcting amendments.
The U.S. Department of Labor (Department) published the Wagner-Peyser Act Staffing rule on November 24, 2023. In that rulemaking document, the Department inadvertently removed the definition of
Effective on February 28, 2024.
Kim Vitelli, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C-4526, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 693-3980 (voice) (this is not a toll- free number). For persons with a hearing or speech disability who need assistance to use the telephone system, please dial 711 to access telecommunications relay services.
On November 24, 2023, the Department published a final rule (88 FR 82658) making changes to staffing requirements under the Wagner-Peyser Act. Within the amendments to 20 CFR part 651, the introduction of the changes to the definitions in 20 CFR 651.10 specified at 2.f the removal of the definition
Employment, Grant programs—labor.
Accordingly, 20 CFR part 651 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
29 U.S.C. 49a and 49k; 38 U.S.C. 101, chapters 41 and 42; Secs. 3, 189 and 503, Pub. L. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Final rule.
Section 2145 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) amended the maximum loan limits for manufactured home loans insured under Title I of the National Housing Act and required regulations to implement future indexing of the loan limit amounts for manufactured homes originated under the Manufactured Home Loan program. This rule establishes indexing methodologies using data from the United States Census Bureau (“Census”) to annually calculate the loan limits for Manufactured Home Loans, Manufactured Home Lot Loans, and Manufactured Home and Lot Combination Loans (“Combination Loans”) insured under Title I of the National Housing Act for the Manufactured Home Loan program. This final rule adopts HUD's October 18, 2022, proposed rule with changes.
Effective March 29, 2024.
Mary Jo Houton, Acting Director, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St. SW, Room 9266, Washington, DC 20410-4000; telephone number 202-402-2378 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
Title I of the National Housing Act authorizes the Secretary of HUD to insure, through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), loans made by FHA-approved lenders to eligible borrowers to finance property improvement and purchase, or refinance, of a manufactured home, with or without the lot. HUD insures these loans under HUD's Property Improvement Loan program and HUD's Manufactured Home Loan program. FHA insures the lender against loss if the borrower defaults. A Title I Manufactured Home Loan may be used for the purchase or refinancing of a manufactured home, a lot on which to place a manufactured home, or a manufactured home and lot in combination. The manufactured home must be used as the principal residence of the borrower. Applicable loan limits and requirements are codified in 24 CFR part 201.
Section 2117 of HERA
In compliance with HERA, on March 3, 2009, HUD published Title I Letter TI-480
On October 18, 2022, as required by HERA, HUD published for public comment a proposed rule (87 FR 63018) (“the proposed rule”) to update the loan limits in § 201.10 and to establish an index for which future loan limits would be revised through notice. HUD also proposed to amend the definition of “manufactured home” in § 201.2 to conform to the loan limit change. HUD proposed to index loan limits based on sale prices, unit sizes, and property data collected by the Census Bureau.
HUD proposed to establish separate indexing methodologies to annually calculate future loan limits for manufactured home loans, manufactured home lot loans, and manufactured home and lot combination loans under the Manufactured Home Loan program.
HUD proposed to create a dual index based on purchase prices of manufactured homes, which are collected by the US Census Bureau (Census): an index for single-section manufactured homes using only single-section home sale data and a separate index for multi-section manufactured homes using only double-section home sale data.
HUD also proposed to adjust loan limits for single-section and double or greater-section manufactured home loans annually based on changes to indexes for the average price of single-section and double-section manufactured homes, respectively. HUD proposed to set each loan limit at the average price data for the most recent 12 months available at the time HUD calculates the adjustment, weighted according to the number of manufactured units shipped during that same period.
HUD also proposed creating an index for Manufactured Home Lot Loans based on median home prices in Census's New Residential Sales data.
Finally, HUD proposed that the loan limit for manufactured home and lot Combination Loans would be determined by adding the manufactured home lot loan limit to either the single- or double-section loan limit, depending on the home.
HUD adopts the proposed rule with changes to the indices and changes to the regulatory text.
As further discussed in the public comment summary, HUD received several comments suggesting that the loan limits set by the proposed indexing methodology would be too low to accurately reflect current manufactured housing prices and that, if adopted, the proposed indexing methodology would frustrate the purpose of section 2145 of HERA which is to make FHA housing programs more widely available for low-income homebuyers.
In consideration of these comments, HUD has decided to adjust the proposed indexing methodology to more accurately reflect real-world manufactured housing costs, improving the viability of the Title I Manufactured Housing program and fulfilling HERA's purpose of making FHA housing programs available to more homebuyers.
In addition to using the average manufactured housing prices for single- and multi-section homes, HUD will use two additional factors in calculating the manufactured home loan limits. First, HUD will set loan limits at 15% above the average home price according to the Census data for the given type of loan. This is consistent with the initial loan limits set by HERA, which were set to about 15% over the average manufactured home price at the time. This is also consistent with how HUD calculates loan limits under Title II, where FHA limits loans to 115% of the median home price.
Second, to account for the time between when the Manufactured Housing Survey data was collected and when the limits will be effective, HUD will utilize an inflation factor. To calculate this inflation factor, HUD will use an inflation forecast such as the CPI-U forecast in the President's Economic Assumptions
HUD's updated indexing methodology is demonstrated in the below chart:
HUD will make changes to the indexing methodology through notice where HUD determines that revisions are necessary to enhance or maintain the accuracy of the index. HUD anticipates any such change(s) would likely be technical in nature, but if a change were more than technical, HUD would provide notice to the public with the opportunity for comment prior to changing the index.
Table 3 below shows examples of the loan limits, based on recent data from Census.
HUD is making only technical changes at the final rule stage. HUD is removing references to “double-section” homes as they are already covered by “multi-section” homes. HUD is also revising § 201.10(h)(1) and (2) to remove the reference to changes to the “average” price of single-section manufactured home sales as superfluous. HUD is also revising § 201.10(h)(2) to change a reference to data published by HUD because the data HUD will be using is published by the Census Bureau. HUD is also revising § 201.10(h)(1) through (3) to clarify that HUD will not lower loan limits from previous years.
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on December 19, 2022. HUD received five distinct comments relating to the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by an individual, associations representing housing industry stakeholders (
Multiple commenters expressed their support for the proposed rule. One commenter said they support the proposed rule because of the significant cost increase in modular homes since 2008 and because the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008's (HERA) current limits are too low to allow low-income Americans to afford housing. Commenters expressed support for the proposed rule because they said updated loan limits would help address the declining trend in loans that qualify for the Title I loan program. Another commenter expressed support for the proposed rule because it would establish separate loan limits for single-section and multi-section manufactured homes. The commenter stated that home size has a significant impact on home cost and separate loan limits help account for the different cost components between single- and multi-section homes.
A commenter expressed their support for the proposed rule, stating it would benefit low to moderate-income and first-time home buyers to take advantage of financing through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and begin to build wealth through homeownership. Another commenter said the proposed rule would create opportunities for creditworthy borrowers to access manufactured homes, and this is a crucial bridge to address the housing supply gap allowing low to moderate-income Americans to afford a home.
A commenter stated that the proposed rule creates a unique indexing methodology that increases loan limits through annual adjustments that would ensure the limits remain current with the housing market. Another commenter stated that they are encouraged by the potential effect of the proposed rule's indexing methodology because it will update statutory loan limits established
A commenter stated they are supportive of the proposed rule's attempt at increasing loan limits for FHA's Title I program and believed that the index would capture the movement of manufactured home pricing. However, the commenter believes that loan limits should be increased further than described in the proposed rule. The commenter stated that community banks typically choose to portfolio loans that may otherwise be eligible for FHA's Title I program because the maximum FHA loan amounts often fail to cover the cost of the unit. The commenter, a lender, calculated the percentage of its own loans in 2022 that would have qualified under the proposed rule's example loan limits for 2022 to be 22.7 percent of all single-section loans; 47 percent of all multi-section loans; 46 percent of all single-section, land loans; and 54.6 percent of all multi-section, land loans.
The commenter encouraged HUD to further increase the proposed loan limits because the commenter was discouraged that a higher percentage of its loans would not have qualified for the Title I program.
The commenter also stated that its figures do not account for the advance structure limitations that accompany the Title I loan limits, such as the 130 percent of home invoice limitation (including itemized options and freight). The commenter estimated that only 3.4 percent of its originated new home only loans in the last 12 months had a home sales price under the 130 percent limitation.
The commenter stated that, in the commenter's experience, most manufactured home retailers sell homes significantly above 130 percent of the manufactured home invoice. To address this, the commenter suggested that HUD either improve or remove the limitation altogether. The commenter stated that annually adjusted loan limits can be a sufficient “check” to ensure that home prices stay true to recent market trends and, therefore, the 130 percent cap is an unnecessary limitation that undercuts the effectiveness of the increased loan limits. The commenter stated that, as an alternative to eliminating the 130 percent cap, HUD could increase the limitation to 160 percent. The commenter stated that the 160 percent adjustment would represent a more practical and realistic percentage that would not require retailers to significantly cut sales prices for a home to qualify for a Title I loan. The commenter stated that over the last 12 months, 44 percent of its loans have involved homes sold under the 160 percent cap, compared to only 3.4 percent under the 130 percent cap.
HUD includes the 130 percent cap on new manufactured homes to protect FHA borrowers and in keeping with FHA's fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. The 130 percent cap is not the focus of this rulemaking. Nevertheless, HUD will continue to consider this issue in regard to the Title I manufactured housing program.
A commenter stated that the proposed indexing methodology is not sufficient to capture the reality of land and improvements costs for manufactured homes. The commenter stated that the National Housing Act requires HUD to base the index on manufactured housing price data collected by the Census Bureau; however, the proposed rule seeks to create an index based on median home prices in the Census Bureau's New Residential Sales data. The commenter stated that the average total costs of options (
The commenter stated that improvements on purchased land are usually vital with the purchase of a manufactured home with land because each land site is typically developed individually, unlike single-family homes built by a developer with the appropriate infrastructure scaled across hundreds of lots.
To more accurately reflect the actual costs of purchasing a manufactured housing lot, the commenter suggested the use of Census Bureau MHS Annual Data, Cost & Size Comparison: New Manufactured Homes and New Single-Family Site Build Homes that derives the average land price for site-built homes, which, while not connected to manufactured housing pricing data, at least accounts for the actual cost of land, according to the commenter. The commenter stated that the derived average land price in the Census Bureau data vastly exceeds the example 2022 loan limit and is directly related to the cost of land alone.
A commenter suggested that loan limits be initially brought up to the following values, which the commenter stated were based on the commenter's current origination volume for manufactured home lending: home only loans, single-section homes to $200,000, multi-section homes to $300,000; loans secured by land, single-section homes to $325,000, multi-section homes to $350,000. The commenter suggested that the new manufactured homes sales price data then be used as the index for year-over-year loan limit adjustments to this new baseline. The commenter stated that if the loan limits were adjusted in the described manner, nearly all manufactured home loans could qualify for the Title I program, making the program truly viable.
A commenter provided the following suggestions for changes to FHA's Title I program: (1) The origination cap fee should be updated from 2 percent to the greater of $2,000 or 2 percent because the cost to originate a lower balance Title I loan is effectively the same as that to originate a larger mortgage; (2) Permit Title I closing-related fees and other customary home loan fees (
Another commenter recommended that FHA update its fee structure to incentivize lenders to offer loans through the Title I program.
Another commenter stated that a significant reason that community banks are not FHA-approved lenders is because the FHA lender approval process is overly complicated and burdensome. The commenter recommended that HUD work with community bank stakeholders to determine the best way to simplify the FHA lender approval process, thus expanding community bank participation in FHA's Title I program. This commenter also recommended that HUD create a secondary market facility that allowed community banks to sell manufactured home loans, which the commenter stated would incentivize lenders to make these loans because it would allow lenders to quickly free up capital to further invest in the lenders' communities.
A commenter stated that they found the proposed rule to be an interesting proposal to address rising home prices and that using indexing methodology and census data on manufactured homes may create a fair or unfair opportunity to take out loans on manufactured homes due to the potential limitation on loan amounts based on this methodology.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review) amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), among other things.
This rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and therefore was reviewed by OMB. However, this final rule was not deemed to be significant under section 3(f)(1) of the Order. The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule establishes and reviews loan limits. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6) this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either: (i) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or (ii) preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
Claims, Health facilities, Historic preservation, Home improvement, Loan programs—housing and community development, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 201 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1703; 15 U.S.C. 1639c; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(b) * * *
(1) The total principal obligation for a loan to purchase a new manufactured home shall not exceed the sum of the following itemized amounts, up to a maximum set according to an index established by HUD in paragraph (h)(1) of this section and updated through notice which shall establish separate loan limits for single-section homes and multi-section homes:
(2) The total principal obligation for a loan to purchase an existing manufactured home shall not exceed the lesser of the following amounts, up to a maximum set according to an index established by HUD in paragraph (h)(1) of this section and updated through notice which shall establish separate loan limits for single-section homes and multi-section homes:
(c)
(d) * * *
(1) The total principal obligation for a loan to purchase a new manufactured home and a lot on which to place the home shall not exceed the sum of the following itemized amounts, up to a maximum set according to an index established by HUD in paragraph (h)(3) of this section and updated through notice which shall establish separate loan limits for single-section homes and multi-section homes:
(2) The total principal obligation for a Combination Loan, to purchase an existing manufactured home and lot, shall not exceed the lesser of the following amounts, up to a maximum set according to an index established by HUD in paragraph (h)(3) of this section and updated through notice which shall establish separate loan limits for single-section homes and multi-section homes:
(h)
(1) In paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, the single-section manufactured home loan limit shall be adjusted to reflect changes in single-section manufactured home sales prices and the multi-section manufactured home loan limit shall be increased to reflect changes in double-section manufactured home sales prices, according to data published by the Census Bureau, except that the loan limits shall not be lowered.
(2) In paragraph (c) of this section, the manufactured home lot loan limit shall be increased to reflect changes in single-family home sales prices according to data published by the Census Bureau, except that the loan limit shall not be lowered.
(3) In paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, the combination manufactured home and lot loan limits shall be increased to be the sum of the applicable loan limit for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Final rule.
The Mark-to-Market program preserves affordability and availability of affordable rental multifamily properties with federally insured mortgages, reducing rents to market levels by restructuring existing debt to levels supportable by these rents. This final rule revises the Mark-to-Market program regulations to clarify that annual adjustment of restructured rents under the program will be based on an operating cost adjustment factor determined by HUD and to further clarify when HUD may approve rent adjustments on a budget basis. This final rule will bring greater clarity to the Mark-to-Market program and will align HUD's regulations with recent legislative changes that specifically allow budget-based rent adjustments for the program.
Effective: March 29, 2024.
Thomas R. Davis, Director, Office of Recapitalization, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 6106, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-7549. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call please visit
The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (Title V of Pub. L. 105-65, approved October 27, 1997, and codified at 42 U.S.C. 1437f note) (MAHRA) authorizes the Mark-to-Market program, which is designed to preserve low-income rental housing affordability while reducing the long-term costs of federal rental assistance. Under the program, multifamily housing projects with above-market rents that are subject to an expiring contract under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) (Section 8) undergo both a restructuring of the project's HUD-insured or HUD-held debt and an initial renewal of its Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract so that a new first loan is serviceable based on modified rents.
On July 16, 2020, HUD issued a proposed rule in the
In addition, HUD in the proposed rule sought to revise § 401.554 to remove the statement that HUD will “extend” Section 8 contracts in order to comport with HUD's standard programmatic practice of renewing contracts rather than extending them and also to remove a parenthetical reference in § 401.554 to multiple renewal authorities for contracts subject to a Restructuring Plan.
Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, Public Law 117-328, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, approved on December 29, 2022, amended MAHRA section 515 to add a new subsection specifically authorizing budget-based rent adjustments for Mark-to-Market projects. As amended, the statute provides that HUD may, not more than once every 10 years, adjust rents in an amount equal to the lesser of budget-based rents or comparable market rents for the market area upon request of an owner or purchaser who meet certain criteria.
This final rule implements the statutory change enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, as well as the revisions to § 401.554 contemplated in the proposed rule.
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on September 14, 2020. HUD received five comments. The commenters included members of the public, public officials, and the assisted housing industry. Commenters were generally opposed to the contemplated regulatory changes removing the budget-based rent adjustment provision; however, this issue has been superseded and obviated by the statutory change enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. The statutory change is generally aligned with the views expressed by commenters on the rent adjustment provisions. Commenters expressed no opinions with respect to the proposed revisions to § 401.554.
Commenters stated that HUD does retain the discretion to use a budget-based rent adjustment at the request of the property owner regardless of whether § 401.412(b) is revised. One commenter noted that in enacting MAHRA, Congress did not prohibit the Secretary's exercise of reasonable discretion to address extraordinary circumstances affecting the viability and condition of restructured projects over a 30-year period. Additionally, the commenter stated that under section 514(e) of MAHRA, the use of the mandatory “shall” with the permissive “allow” refutes any presumption that Congress intended rent adjustments by application of an OCAF to be exclusive. Congress did not provide that it must be the only option regardless of all potential circumstances at the property. In this same vein, another commenter stated that although Section 514 and Section 515 when read together make clear that the Restructuring Plan must “allow for” an OCAF as a required element of the Restructuring Plan, and an owner must agree to an OCAF renewal if offered by HUD, there is nothing that either prevents HUD from offering or an owner from accepting an alternate renewal option. The commenter noted that MAHRA at 514(e) uses the term “allow” when describing inclusion of an OCAF rent adjustment in the Restructuring Plan without the qualifying term “only,” and uses the term “require” for other aspects of the Restructuring Plan. One commenter stated that since the publication of the Final Rule in 2000, HUD has made a “determination” that Section 515(b) is the appropriate legal authority for subsequent renewal of HAP Contracts
One commenter opined that assumptions made about the ability of a restructuring to reposition a property for a 30-year period of physical and financial health are, anecdotally at least, proving to be short-sighted in many cases, and that, in the absence of options to increase the HAP Contract rents, these projects often lack viable options and provide few incentives for developers and investors willing to take on a preservation transaction. As a consequence, residents in projects restructured through the MTM program may soon find themselves living in buildings with rapidly increasing maintenance and repair needs with no viable near-term solution to reverse the building's physical and financial decline. One commenter stated a concern that, in a time when many of the approximately 2,600 properties that were restructured pursuant to Mark-to-Market have health and safety concerns, the proposed rule would limit the ability of HUD to work with property owners to redevelop properties by limiting the discretionary authority of HUD to provide a budget-based rent increase for properties, especially at-risk low-income properties that have operating and financial needs greater than the operating cost adjustment factor rent increase would cover.
One commenter requested that with respect to the programmatic practice of adjusting rents annually, rents should be dropped to $0 after three years of residence. Another commenter noted concern with how the proposed rule would benefit families who utilize section 8 and families with disabilities in rural and frontier communities. The commenter also stated that changing information collection methods for family tenants could impact initial and continuing eligibility for all social services programs, and that the proposed rule could impact smaller PHAs and landlords' ability to collect consistent rents and section 8 HUD payment which could lead to fewer landlords seeing the value of Section 8 for families.
This final rule responds to the public comments and conforms the regulations to the governing statutory provision, the terms of Mark-to-Market renewal contracts, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.
Based on the statutory change to Section 515 of MAHRA enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023—which is generally aligned with the views expressed by commenters on the rent adjustment provisions—this final rule does not delete existing 24 CFR 401.412(b) as contemplated in the proposed rule. Instead, this final rule revises 24 CFR 401.412(b) to codify the conditions necessary in order to receive a budget-based adjustment.
As discussed in the proposed rule, in this final rule HUD is revising the language in 24 CFR 401.554 that indicates that HUD will “offer to renew or extend” a Section 8 contract, as provided in a project's Restructuring Plan. Because the programmatic practice is to offer to renew rather than to extend, HUD is deleting the words “or extend” and is also removing the parenthetical in § 401.554 suggesting that there may be more than one renewal authority for projects subject to a Restructuring Plan.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. Executive Order 14094 entitled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (hereinafter referred to as the “Modernizing E.O.”) amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
This final rule codifies the authority for budget-based rent increases in the Mark-to-Market program enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328, December 29, 2022) and conforms the regulations to longstanding HUD practice and the terms of the renewal contracts. This final rule does not create significant budgetary impact on the administration of Section 8 subsidy or create administrative costs, nor does it alter the underlying operation of the Mark-to-Market program. As such, this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and the rule was not reviewed by OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This final rule does not change any information collection requirements.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.
This final rule governs the statutorily required establishment and review of rent schedules and related administrative and fiscal requirements and procedures, which do not constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; approved March 22, 1995) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This final rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Mortgages, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 401 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1715z-1 and 1735f-19(b); 42 U.S.C. 1437(c)(8), 1437f(t), 1437f note, and 3535(d).
(a)
(1) The Restructuring Plan must provide for annual adjustment of the restructured rents for project-based assistance by an OCAF determined by HUD.
(2)
(b)
(1) Demonstrates that:
(i) Project income is insufficient to operate and maintain the project, and no rehabilitation is currently needed, as determined by the Secretary; or
(ii) The rent adjustment or renewal contract is necessary to support commercially reasonable financing (including any required debt service coverage and replacement reserve) for rehabilitation necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the project, as determined by the Secretary, and in the event the owner or purchaser fails to implement the rehabilitation as required by the Secretary, the Secretary may take such action against the owner or purchaser as allowed by law; and
(2) Agrees to:
(i) Extend the affordability and use restrictions required under 514(e)(6) for an additional twenty years; and
(ii) Enter into a binding commitment to continue to renew such contract for and during such extended term, provided that after the affordability and use restrictions required under 514(e)(6) have been maintained for a term of 30 years:
(A) An owner with a contract for which rent levels were set at the time of its initial renewal under section 514(g)(2) shall request that the Secretary renew such contract under section 524 for and during such extended term; and
(B) An owner with a contract for which rent levels were set at the time of its initial renewal under section 514(g)(1) may request that the Secretary renew such contract under section 524 for and during such extended term.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of triclopyr, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on sugarcane, cane. The Interregional Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 28, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 29, 2024, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0890, is available online at
Charles Smith, Director, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0890 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 29, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0890, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified
In an effort to streamline its publications in the
EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for triclopyr in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to triclopyr and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from these rulemakings as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.
The Agency classified triclopyr as a “Group D Chemical—unable to be classified as to human carcinogenicity.” This is based on marginal evidence of mammary tumors in female rats and mice and benign adrenal pheochromocytomas in male rats. There was no evidence of mutagenicity in a full battery of studies for triclopyr. Therefore, a cancer risk assessment was not conducted. The use of the chronic reference dose (RfD), which is derived from the most protective point of departure (POD) from the tox database, will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including potential carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to triclopyr. A 100X uncertainty factor (10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variation) was incorporated into the chronic RfD. Since the FQPA SF has been reduced to 1X, the chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD) is equal to the chronic RfD.
1. The existing toxicological database is adequate for characterizing triclopyr toxicity and quantification of hazard for dietary and occupational exposures. The developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and two-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats are available to assess potential fetal/offspring sensitivity;
2. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity from triclopyr exposure;
3. While there is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility to offspring from triclopyr exposure in the two-generation reproduction toxicity study, the concern is low since effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) values, effects were seen in the presence of parental toxicity, and selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects; and
4. There are no residual uncertainties with respect to exposure data. The dietary food exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-level residues (established or recommended) except milk (an anticipated residue was used for milk in the chronic assessment) and 100% crop treated for all proposed/established commodities. By using these assumptions, the acute and chronic exposures/risks will not be underestimated.
The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters that are designed to provide conservative, health-protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations that will not likely be exceeded. The residential handler and post-application exposure assessments are based upon the residential standard operating procedures (SOPs) in conjunction with Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database unit exposures. The residential SOPs are based upon reasonable worst-case assumptions and are not expected to underestimate risk. These assessments of exposure are not likely to underestimate the resulting estimates of risk from exposure to triclopyr.
Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the aPAD; they are 53% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old and 8% of the aPAD for all infants, the most highly exposed population subgroup. No acute residential/recreational exposures are expected, so the acute aggregate risk is equivalent to the acute dietary risk and is not of concern. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 46% of the cPAD for all infants, the most highly exposed population subgroup. No long-term residential exposures are expected, so the chronic aggregate risk is equivalent to the chronic dietary risk and is not of concern.
For the short-term aggregate risk assessment, potential residential exposures were combined with food and drinking water exposures. Specifically, the short-term aggregate assessment for adults combines dietary (food + drinking water) exposures with handler inhalation exposures resulting from the registered turf use and the MOE is 410. For children 1 to <2 years old, the short-term aggregate assessment combines dietary (food + drinking water) exposure with potential post-application incidental oral exposure resulting from the registered turf use and the MOE is 360. For children 3 to <6 years old, the short-term aggregate assessment combines dietary (food + drinking water) exposure with potential post-application inhalation and incidental oral swimmer exposure resulting from the registered aquatic use and the MOE is 120. As the short-term aggregate MOEs are greater than 100, the risks are not of concern. Although there are intermediate-term residential exposures, an intermediate-term aggregate was not separately assessed since: 1. the short- and intermediate-term points of departure are the same and 2. the short-term aggregate provides a worst-case estimate of residential exposure. For these reasons, the short-term aggregate is protective of the longer-term exposures.
As stated in Unit III.A. of the February 25, 2016, final rule, EPA has determined that an aggregate exposure risk assessment for cancer risk is not required based on WOE conclusions on the marginal evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies and the use of the chronic RfD which will adequately account for any potential carcinogenic effects.
Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to triclopyr residues. More detailed information on this action can be found in the document titled “Triclopyr. Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3 Use on Sugarcane” in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0890.
For details about the analytical enforcement methodology, see Unit IV.A. of the final rule published in the
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex has not established any MRLs for triclopyr.
EPA is not removing the established time-limited tolerance for residues of triclopyr in or on sugarcane, cane at 40 ppm. The use pattern in the emergency exemption for triclopyr on sugarcane is different than the Section 3 use supported by this tolerance rule and there may be sugarcane in the channels of trade with higher residues from use under the emergency exemption.
Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of the herbicide triclopyr, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on sugarcane, cane at
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason announcement of 2024 annual catch limit.
NMFS is announcing that the Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) 2024 annual catch limit for U.S. commercial fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) is 720 metric tons (mt).
The rule is effective 12 a.m. local time on March 28, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. local time on December 31, 2024.
Tyler Lawson, NMFS West Coast Region, 503-230-5421.
The United States is a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which was established under the Convention for the Establishment of an IATTC signed in 1949 (1949 Convention). The 1949 Convention provides an international agreement to ensure the effective international conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the IATTC Convention Area. In 2003, the IATTC updated the 1949 Convention through the adoption of the Convention for the Strengthening of the IATTC Established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (Antigua Convention). The IATTC Convention Area, as amended by the Antigua Convention, includes the waters of the EPO bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N and 50° S parallels, and the 150° W meridian.
Fishing for PBF in the EPO is managed, in part, under the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as amended (the Act), 16 U.S.C. 951
On August 5, 2022, NMFS published a final rule (87 FR 47939) implementing IATTC Resolution C-21-05 (
As established in the August 2022 final rule, the annual catch limit for 2024 is contingent upon the amount of PBF tuna caught in 2023; specifically, the 2024 limit is the lesser of the amount caught in 2023 subtracted from the biennial limit or 720 mt. Based on landings data and other information available as of February 5, 2024, 186 mt of PBF were caught by U.S. commercial vessels fishing in the EPO in 2023, which when subtracted from the biennial limit (1,054 mt) results in an amount that is in excess of the 1-year maximum catch limit of 720 mt. The annual catch limit for 2024 is therefore 720 mt.
Notice of the annual catch limit has also been posted on the NMFS website:
There is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as notice and comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Existing regulations provide NMFS with no discretion in setting the 2024 annual catch limit; therefore, public comment on this action is unnecessary. Moreover, prior notice and an opportunity for public comment were provided when NMFS promulgated the regulations for determining the biennial and annual catch limits for 2023-2024. Notification of the 2023-2024 biennial catch limit and associated annual catch limit were also provided to the public through posting on the NMFS website.
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 951
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a fractured clutch shaft forward yoke (yoke) on the main rotor (M/R) drive due to fatigue cracking. This proposed AD would require visually inspecting a certain part-numbered flex plate assembly (flex plate) and certain part-numbered yokes, including each yoke bolt, and depending on the inspection results, removing an affected part from service and replacing an affected part with an airworthy part. This proposed AD would also require removing a certain part-numbered yoke from service after accumulating a certain number of hours time-in-service (TIS) or a certain number of years, or as an alternative to removing the part from service, performing a 10X or higher power magnification visual inspection and, if needed, a magnetic particle inspection. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 15, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Eric Moreland, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (562) 627-5364; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Eric Moreland, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (562) 627-5364; email:
After receiving a report of a failed yoke in the M/R drive system, the FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin AIR-22-08, dated April 11, 2022 (SAIB) to remind owners and operators of any Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 helicopters of the importance of adhering to existing inspection procedures in the applicable operating handbooks and maintenance manuals. According to Robinson Helicopter Company, the yoke had fractured due to fatigue cracking and improper torque at the bolt hole and the yoke cross-section.
After the FAA issued the SAIB, Robinson Helicopter Company reported an additional incident on a Model R44 helicopter where the yoke was fractured and separated from the drive train, again due to fatigue cracks and improper torquing. Accordingly, the FAA
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Robinson Helicopter Company R44 Maintenance Manual and Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Volume 1, Chapter 2 and Chapter 23, dated September 2023, which specifies procedures for inspecting the yoke and flex plate of the M/R drive, removing paint, applying torque, and performing a magnetic particle inspection. This service information also contains the information specified in Appendix 1 to this proposed AD, which specifies torque values, and Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD, which depicts the areas for the flex plate inspection.
This proposed AD would require visually inspecting flex plate part number (P/N) C947-1 for any loose fasteners, cracks, fretting, corrosion, wear, and to ensure that the washers are bonded to both sides of the flex plate arms and depending on the inspection results, removing the flex plate from service and replacing it with an airworthy flex plate.
This proposed AD would also require visually inspecting yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2 as applicable, and yoke P/N C908-1, for any cracks, corrosion, and fretting, and depending on the inspection results, removing the yoke from service and replacing it with an airworthy yoke. Additionally, this proposed AD would require visually inspecting each yoke bolt for a torque stripe, loose fastener, loose nut, and to determine if nut P/N D210-6 and palnut P/N B330-19 are installed. If there are any missing torque stripes, loose fasteners, loose nuts, or if nut P/N D210-6 or palnut P/N B330-19 are not installed, this proposed AD would require removing the associated yoke from service and replacing it with an airworthy yoke.
This proposed AD would also require removing from service any yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2 that has accumulated more than 12 years or 2,200 total hours TIS, whichever occurs first since first installation on any helicopter, and replacing it with a yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2 that has accumulated less than 2,200 total hours TIS or 12 years, whichever occurs first since first installation on any helicopter. As an alternative to replacing any yoke that has accumulated more than 12 years or 2,200 total hours TIS since first installation on a helicopter, this proposed AD would allow removing paint from the yoke and using 10X or higher power magnifying glass to inspect for any crack, seam, lap, shut, missing cadmium plating, or any flaw which is open to the surface, and depending on the inspection results, removing the yoke from service and replacing it with an airworthy yoke. If the yoke is not replaced as a result of the alternate inspection, this proposed AD would require performing a magnetic particle inspection of the yoke for any crack, seam, lap, shut, or any flaw which is open to the surface, and depending on the inspection results, removing the yoke from service and replacing with an airworthy yoke.
Finally, if the yoke is replaced as a result of the actions required by this proposed AD, this proposed AD would require torquing each bolt, nut, and palnut using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this proposed AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,725 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Visually inspecting a flex plate would take approximately 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $36,225 for the U.S. fleet.
Visually inspecting a yoke, including inspecting each yoke bolt, would take approximately 1.25 work-hours for an estimated cost of $106 per helicopter and $182,850 for the U.S. fleet.
Replacing a yoke would take approximately 6 work-hours and parts would cost approximately $890 for an estimated cost of $1,400 per helicopter.
Removing paint and inspecting a yoke using 10X or higher power magnifying glass would take approximately 1.5 work-hours for an estimated cost of $128 per helicopter.
Performing a magnetic particle inspection would take approximately 1.5 work-hours for an estimated cost of $128 per helicopter.
Applying torque to one bolt, nut, and palnut would take approximately 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per hardware set.
If required, replacing a flex plate would take approximately 1 work-hour and parts would cost approximately $1,240 for an estimated cost of $1,325 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 15, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 6310, Engine/Transmission coupling.
This AD was prompted by reports of a fractured clutch shaft forward yoke (yoke) on the main rotor (M/R) drive due to fatigue cracking. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect fatigue cracking on the yoke. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of M/R drive and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
(i) Visually inspect forward flex plate assembly (flex plate) part number (P/N) C947-1 for any loose fasteners, cracks, fretting, corrosion, wear, and to ensure that the washers are bonded to both sides of each flex plate arm, in the areas depicted in Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, which includes the four bolt holes. If there is any loose fastener (can be moved by hand), crack, fretting, corrosion, or wear in any area including the four bolt holes, or wear that consists of the washers not securely bonded to both sides of each flex plate arm, before further flight, remove the flex plate from service and replace with an airworthy flex plate.
(ii) Visually inspect yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2, as applicable to your model helicopter, and yoke P/N C908-1, for any cracks, corrosion, and fretting. If there is any crack, corrosion, or fretting, before further flight, remove the yoke from service and replace it with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD.
(iii) Visually inspect each yoke bolt for a torque stripe, loose fastener, a loose nut, and to ensure that nut P/N D210-6 and palnut P/N B330-19 are installed. If there is a missing torque stripe, loose fastener on any nut (can be moved by hand), any nut is loose (nut can be turned by hand), or if nut P/N D210-6 or palnut P/N B330-19 are not installed, before further flight, remove the associated yoke from service and replace it with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD.
(2) For helicopters on which a yoke replacement as specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this AD was not accomplished: Prior to the accumulation of 2,200 total hours TIS on any yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2 or within 12 years since first installation of yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2 on any helicopter, whichever occurs first; or within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later, remove that yoke from service and replace it with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD.
(3) As an alternative to removing the yoke from service as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, remove yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2, as applicable to your model helicopter, remove the paint on the yoke using Cee-Bee stripper A-292, without using a plastic media abrasive paint stripper, and accomplish paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) Using 10X or higher power magnifying glass, visually inspect the yoke for any crack, seam, lap, shut, missing cadmium plating,
(ii) If the yoke is not removed from service as a result of the actions required by paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this AD, visually inspect it for any crack, seam, lap, shut, or any flaw which is open to the surface by performing a magnetic particle inspection using a method in accordance with FAA-approved procedures. If there is any crack, seam, lap, shut, or flaw, before further flight, remove the yoke from service and replace with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD.
A one-time flight permit may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 in order to fly to a maintenance area to perform the required actions in this AD, provided there are no passengers onboard.
(1) The Manager, West Certification 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 West Certification Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Eric Moreland, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (562) 627-5364; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class D airspace at the Dallas Executive Airport formerly known as Dallas Redbird Airport, TX. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of a biennial airspace review. This action would also update the name and geographic coordinates. This action will bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and support instrument procedures.
Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2024.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-2362 and Airspace Docket No. 23-ASW-18 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, 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 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 would amend the Class D airspace at the Dallas Executive Airport formerly known as Dallas Redbird Airport, Dallas, TX, (contained within the airspace legal description) to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Class D airspace is published in paragraph 5000 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile (increased from 4.2-mile) radius of the Dallas Executive Airport, Dallas TX, (previously Dallas Redbird Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; updating
This FAA is proposing this action as the result of a biennial airspace review conducted in accordance with FAA orders, to bring the airspace into compliance with current FAA orders, and to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 the surface up to but not including 3,000 feet within a 4.5-mile radius of Dallas Executive Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes T-489, T-491, T-493, and T-495; amend RNAV Routes Q-102, T-210, T-336, T-341, and T-349; and revoke RNAV Route T-204 in the eastern United States. This action supports FAA Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) efforts to provide a modern RNAV route structure to improve the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2024.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2024-0157 and Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-32 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 and 6011 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
In March 2000, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) requested that the FAA take action to develop and chart Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) RNAV routes for use by aircraft having IFR-approved Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. In response to the AOPA request, a cooperative effort was launched involving the FAA, AOPA, and the Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum. This effort began with the development of RNAV routes to provide more direct routing for enroute IFR aircraft to transition through busy terminal airspace areas. As a result, the FAA established T-204 on December 22, 2005 (70 FR 66251; November 2, 2005) as an Area Navigation Instrument Flight Rules Terminal Transition Routes (RITTR). RITTR routes are low-altitude Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes, based on RNAV, for use by aircraft having IFR-approved GPS/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment. The purpose of RITTR routes is to expedite the handling of IFR overflight traffic through busy terminal airspace areas.
T-204 currently extends between the Taylor, FL (TAY), Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Brunswick, GA (SSI), VORTAC. T-204 is a west-east oriented RNAV route that is perpendicular to arrival and departure flows to or from the Jacksonville, FL, area. This orientation contributes to air traffic control (ATC) conflicts. To avoid conflicts with the arrival and departure flows from the north, ATC issues aircraft flying T-204 alternate routing through the Jacksonville, FL, area via RNAV Routes T-208, T-323, T-341, and T-437. Since alternate RNAV routes are regularly issued by ATC to overcome the conflicts noted previously, T-204 has become a seldom used route that is no longer required for RNAV-equipped aircraft to transition through the busy Jacksonville terminal airspace area.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish RNAV Routes T-489, T-491, T-493, and T-495; amend RNAV Routes Q-102, T-210, T-336, T-341, and T-349; and revoke RNAV Route T-204 in the eastern United States. This action supports continued FAA NextGen efforts to provide a modern RNAV route structure that improves the efficiency of the NAS. The proposed RNAV route changes are described below.
The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Proposed supplementary rule.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado is proposing a supplementary rule for public lands addressed in five planning efforts in the Tres Rios and Gunnison Field Offices. The proposed supplementary rule would implement decisions relating to motorized and non-motorized vehicles, day-use areas, seasonal wildlife habitat protection, camping, and campfires.
Please send comments to the following address by April 29, 2024. Comments postmarked or received in person or by electronic mail after this date may not be considered when developing the final supplementary rule.
Please send comments related to the proposed supplementary rule implementing the Tres Rios Field Office (TRFO) Resource Management Plan (RMP), the Dolores River Corridor Management Plan (CMP), and the TRFO Transportation and Access Plan—Travel Area 1 (TAP1) to the Bureau of Land Management, Tres Rios Field Office, 29211 Highway 184, Dolores, CO 81323; or email comments to
Please send comments related to the proposed supplementary rule implementing the Alpine Triangle Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) and the Silverton Travel Management Plan (TMP) to the Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office, 210 W Spencer Ave., Gunnison, CO 81230; or email comments to
On all comments, please include “Proposed Supplementary Rule” in the subject line.
For information regarding the TRFO RMP, Dolores River CMP, and TRFO TAP1, contact Tyler Fouss, Field Staff Ranger, Bureau of Land Management, Tres Rios Field Office, 29211 Highway 184, Dolores, CO 81323; telephone 970-882-1131; email:
For further information related to the Alpine Triangle RAMP and Silverton TMP, please contact James Lovelace, Supervisory Outdoor Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office, 210 W Spencer Ave., Gunnison, CO 81230; telephone 970-642-4953; email
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Written comments on the proposed supplementary rule should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed supplementary rule, and should explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposed supplementary rule. In developing the final supplementary rule, the BLM is not obligated to consider or include in the administrative record comments received after the close of the comment period unless postmarked or electronically dated before the deadline (see
Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact information of respondents, will be available for public review at the TRFO and at the Gunnison Field Office (GFO) addresses (see
In 2015, the TRFO approved an RMP to replace portions of the San Juan/San Miguel RMP that are within the jurisdiction of the TRFO (previously known as the San Juan Resource Area). The RMP and Record of Decision provided direction on how the BLM would manage public lands in Archuleta, La Plata, Montezuma, Dolores, San Miguel, Montrose, Gunnison, San Juan, Ouray, and Hinsdale Counties, Colorado, except for public lands within the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument, which is managed under a separate RMP approved in 2010. The TRFO RMP includes the Dolores River CMP and Alpine Triangle RAMP, which were approved in 1990 and 2010, respectively. During the public planning and EIS processes for the TRFO RMP, the BLM identified the need to establish a supplementary rule to provide for visitor health and safety and to protect cultural, wildlife, and natural resources on public lands managed by the BLM.
When the BLM adopted the TRFO RMP, the plan included BLM-managed lands now under the jurisdiction of the GFO due to changes in the TRFO and GFO boundaries. Neither the TRFO RMP nor the GFO RMP have been updated to reflect these changes; thus the proposed supplementary rule would also apply to BLM-managed lands now administered by the GFO in parts of Hinsdale, San Juan, and Ouray Counties.
Over the past 10 years, the BLM has recorded increases in visitation numbers and subsequent pressures in Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), critical winter wildlife habitat areas, and to archaeological sites throughout the GFO and TRFO. To address the increasing concerns, the BLM is renewing its efforts to adopt a supplementary rule to implement the decisions in the five management plans to protect visitor health and safety and prevent natural and cultural resource degradation.
Several sections of the proposed rule would implement decisions spanning all public lands managed by the BLM in the TRFO and GFO. Other sections would apply only to specific types of BLM-managed lands, such as SRMAs or critical winter wildlife habitat areas experiencing the most intense visitation. The proposed rule would only address
1. The TRFO RMP, initially a joint multi-agency planning effort, included extensive public participation in determining appropriate uses in the planning area. Public comments and input received during all planning stages resulted in the BLM fine-tuning its TRFO RMP. The TRFO RMP applies only to public lands managed by the BLM.
2. Public participation for the Dolores River CMP was a coordinated effort consisting of a task force of people representing diverse interests, including local governments, private landowners, wildlife and fishing enthusiasts, resource conservationists, and private and commercial boaters. In addition, the BLM hosted several public meetings in local communities surrounding the planning area to consider options for managing the river canyon.
3. To develop the TRFO TAP1, the BLM met with various individuals, organizations, and interest groups representing motorized, equestrian, and mechanized users as well as conservation organizations. The BLM also hosted open-house meetings to solicit initial public input.
4. Public participation was vital to developing the Alpine Triangle RAMP. The BLM developed and implemented a public involvement strategy to obtain input from a diverse group of stakeholders and set the stage for community support.
5. The public involvement effort for the Silverton TMP included opportunities for the public to provide feedback during scoping and review of the EA and a BLM open house public meeting at Kendall Mountain in Silverton, CO.
This proposed supplementary rule would apply only to public lands and facilities managed by the TRFO and the GFO.
The decisions in the five management plans this proposed supplementary rule would implement are focused on protecting public health and safety and preventing damage to natural and cultural resources. The five management plans include decisions concerning restrictions, prohibitions, and allowable uses to address identified issues or achieve management goals and objectives. For these decisions to be effectively implemented, enforcement is often needed, first to ensure the management decisions are properly understood and followed and second to provide for civil and criminal penalties should these restrictions and prohibitions not be followed. Most public land users will not notice meaningful changes as many of the sections of the proposed supplementary rule have been long-held recommendations that will now become regulations.
The proposed supplementary rule would direct mechanized travel to designated routes to better preserve the essential resources attracting visitors to public lands, including scenic, cultural, and wildlife habitat resources. Travel off designated routes would be allowed for uses such as camping, picnicking, and firewood cutting as identified in the TMPs.
WSAs are managed for primitive and unconfined recreation, opportunities for solitude, naturalness, roadlessness, livestock grazing, natural resources, and biodiversity. The Ancestral Puebloan and Mesa Verde Escarpment ACECs are designated for the protection of Ancestral Puebloan architectural sites. Non-motorized and mechanized travel in the ACECs would be limited to designated roads, trails, and areas to protect significant archeological resources.
The Perins Peak and Willow Creek Wildlife Management Areas are essential areas to focus on protecting wildlife habitat and providing security. Mechanized travel in these areas would detract from wildlife management objectives. The BLM set aside the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area to protect wildlife habitat. Within the Willow Creek Wildlife Management Area, mechanized restrictions would minimize winter stress and impacts to Gunnison Sage-grouse from December 1 through March 15 and during critical nesting and breeding seasons occurring from March 1 through June 30.
Within the Durango SRMA, the proposed rule would implement the RMP's prohibition against visitors entering the Animas City Mountain, Skyline, and Grandview RMZs of the Durango SRMA at night. The areas affected by this rule are in the urban
The proposed rule would also implement the RMP's ban on campfires in the Animas City Mountain, Skyline, and Grandview RMZs. Campfires within the Animas City Mountain, Skyline, and Grandview RMZs of the Durango SRMA create an increased risk of wildfire in an urban environment (city of Durango), which results in damage to natural and cultural resources and threats to public safety. In addition, campfire rings, ashes, and associated garbage left behind at campfire sites have a negative visual impact on the area. Finally, the presence of campfire rings encourages repeated illegal camping.
The TRFO RMP and Dolores River CMP limit group size to allow the BLM to manage the area to meet resource and carrying capacity guidelines. In addition, the proposed supplementary rule would implement registration requirements at the boat launch sites allowing the BLM to better understand visitor use trends to manage recreational settings and experiences.
The provision implementing the RMP's requirement for river users to use a portable toilet would reduce exposure to human waste, which is a health risk to the public and BLM personnel. A human waste carry-out system must accompany all trips on the river. This system needs to contain washable, reusable, human waste containers. The waste carry-out system must provide for secure containment and an adequate volume of storage relative to group size and trip length. Plastic or metal waste containers must be sturdy enough to withstand strong impact and have a leak-proof lid even when inverted. The river canyon's confined nature cannot accommodate indiscriminate digging of shallow pit toilets for each overnight group traveling down the river. The day-use river users are not required to have a human waste carry-out system.
The proposed rule would also implement the TRFO RMP and Dolores CMP's decision to prohibit collecting dead or downed wood. McPhee Dam's presence has dramatically reduced the supply of driftwood downstream of the dam on the Dolores River and supplies are no longer replenished yearly. Though the periodic death of green trees will augment the canyons bottoms' natural wood reserve, increasing and sustained demand by boaters and other campers would likely deplete this supply. Also, driftwood piles along riverbanks provide unique habitats for species such as weasels, mink, lizards, and ringtails.
The proposed supplementary rule would also require fire pans for any campfires within the Dolores River corridor in the TRFO RMP and Dolores River CMP. Packing out ashes is another tool for maintaining as clean a river as possible.
The supplementary rule would also implement the TRFO RMP's decision to close Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area to all entry from March 15-July 31 each year to protect critical raptor habitat.
The authority for this proposed supplementary rule is set forth at sections 303 and 310 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740. The BLM is proposing this supplementary rule under the authority of 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 8365.1-6, which allows BLM State Directors to establish supplementary rules for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources.
This proposed supplementary rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. This proposed supplementary rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It is not intended to affect commercial activity, but rather to impose rules of conduct for public use on a limited area of public lands. It would not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, environment, public health or safety, State, local, or Tribal governments, or communities. This proposed supplementary rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
The rule would not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor would it raise novel legal or policy issues. It merely strives to protect public safety and the environment.
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed supplementary rule would have no effect on business entities of any size. This supplementary rule would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that this
This proposed supplementary rule does not constitute a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This proposed supplementary rule would merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands.
This proposed supplementary rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year; nor would this proposed supplementary rule have a significant or unique effect on State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed supplementary rule would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands in Colorado to protect natural resources and the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This proposed supplementary rule is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed supplementary rule would not affect a taking of private property rights in any form; and would not cause the impairment of constitutionally protected property rights. A takings implication assessment is not required. This proposed supplementary rule would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands in Colorado to protect natural resources and the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM has determined this proposed supplementary rule would not cause a “taking” of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this E.O.
This proposed supplementary rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, the BLM has determined that this proposed supplementary rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This proposed supplementary rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. More specifically, this proposed supplementary rule meets the criteria of Section 3(a), which requires agencies to review all regulations to eliminate errors and ambiguity and to write all regulations to minimize litigation. This proposed supplementary rule also meets the criteria of Section 3(b)(2), which requires agencies to write all regulations in clear language with clear legal standards.
In accordance with E.O. 13175, the BLM has determined this proposed supplementary rule does not include policies that have tribal implications and would have no bearing on trust lands or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian Tribes or U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Since this supplementary rule would not involve Indian reservation lands or resources, the BLM has determined government-to-government relationships remain unaffected. This proposed supplementary rule would merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands.
This proposed supplementary rule does not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
This proposed supplementary rule would allow the BLM to implement and enforce key decisions in the TRFO RMP, the Dolores River CMP, the TRFO TAP1, the Alpine Triangle RAMP, and the Silverton TMP within TRFO and GFO. This proposed supplementary rule would not change the NEPA analysis or decisions set forth in each of the plans. During the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for each of these planning efforts, the BLM fully analyzed the effects of this proposed supplementary rule in their respective NEPA documents:
The BLM prepared a Determination of NEPA Adequacy to confirm that the prior analyses and public comment processes were sufficient to inform the decision to establish this supplementary rule. Therefore, additional NEPA analysis is not required. Copies of the NEPA analysis and relevant decision document for each of the aforementioned plans, and the Determination of NEPA Adequacy for this proposed supplementary rulemaking, are on file at the BLM offices at the addresses specified in the
In developing this proposed supplementary rule, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).
This proposed supplementary rule does not comprise a significant energy action. This proposed supplementary rule would not have an adverse effect on energy supply, production, or consumption and have no connection with energy policy.
In accordance with E.O. 13352, the BLM has determined this proposed supplementary rule would not impede facilitating cooperative conservation; would take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and would provide that the programs, projects and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.
E.O.s 12866, 12988, and 13563 require each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments on how to make this proposed supplementary rule
1. Are the requirements in the proposed supplementary rule clearly stated?
2. Does the proposed supplementary rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
3. Does the format of the proposed supplementary rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce clarity?
4. Is the description of the proposed supplementary rule in the
Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the rule to the address specified in the
The principal author of this proposed supplementary rule is Tyler Fouss, Field Staff Ranger, Bureau of Land Management, Tres Rios Field Office, Colorado.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authorities for supplementary rules found at 43 U.S.C. 1740, and 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the BLM Colorado State Director proposes this Supplementary Rule for public lands managed by the BLM in the Tres Rios Field Office and the Gunnison Field Office, to read as follows:
(1) Inventoried and determined by the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act; and
(2) Identified to protect those characteristics through a land use planning process and subsequent Record of Decision.
Unless otherwise authorized, the following acts are prohibited on all public lands, roads, trails, and waterways administered by the BLM within the areas defined:
Within the Cortez SRMA, the Dolores River SRMA, the Durango SRMA, the Ancestral Puebloan ACEC, the Gypsum Valley ACEC, the Mesa Verde Escarpment ACEC, the Perins Peak and Willow Creek Wildlife Management Areas, the Spring Creek Wild Horse HMA, as identified in the TRFO RMP:
1. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use, unless you are using a mechanized game cart to retrieve a large game animal with a valid carcass tag. Game carts are not allowed within the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area.
2. You must not use vehicles designed for traveling over snow unless there is adequate snow cover to protect the underlying vegetation and soils from the impact of that use. This use is prohibited in designated Wilderness, WSAs, or lands with wilderness characteristics that are managed to protect wilderness characteristics, in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as critical big game winter relief and winter concentration areas, or areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.
3. You must not possess a motorized vehicle beginning 2.4 miles north of the San Miguel/Dolores County line on the section of Road 14F vacated by San Miguel County (road vacated 2.4 miles north of the San Miguel/Dolores County line for a distance of 2.4 miles) from February 1 through May 1 each year to protect Desert Bighorn Sheep lambing, within the Dolores River SRMA.
4. You must not operate a mechanized vehicle within the Willow Creek Wildlife Management Area from December 1 through June 30 each year for the protection of Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat.
5. You must not operate a mechanized vehicle within the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area.
6. You must not hike, ride or be in possession of horses or other pack animals on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use within the Ancestral Puebloan ACEC and Mesa Verde Escarpment ACEC. Hiking and horseback riding is allowed both on and off designated travel routes throughout the remainder of the area managed by the Tres Rios Field Office.
Within designated WSAs and the Coyote Wash and Snaggletooth lands with wilderness characteristics, as identified in the TRFO RMP:
7. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle.
Within Archuleta County, La Plata County, and Montezuma County, as identified in the TRFO TAP-1:
8. You must not possess a mechanized vehicle on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use, unless you are using a mechanized game cart to retrieve a large game animal with a valid carcass tag. Game carts are not allowed within the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area.
9. You must not park or use a motorized or mechanized vehicle more than 100 feet from the edge of a designated travel route (
10. You must not park a motorized vehicle more than 20 feet from the edge of a designated travel route or in a manner that causes resource damage in the Chutes and Ladders portion of the Cortez SRMA or the Mahan area within La Plata County.
11. You must not use vehicles designed for traveling over snow unless there is adequate snow cover to protect the underlying vegetation and soils from the impact of that use. This use is prohibited in designated Wilderness, WSAs, or other lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as critical big game winter relief and winter concentration areas, or in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.
Within the Silverton SRMA as identified in the TRFO RMP and the Silverton TMP administered by the GFO:
12. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use unless you are using a mechanized game cart to retrieve a large game animal with a valid carcass tag outside of designated WSAs, or congressionally designated Wilderness Areas.
13. You must not park a motorized vehicle more than 30 feet from the edge of a designated travel route or in a manner that causes resource damage.
14. You must not use vehicles designed for traveling over snow unless there is adequate snow cover to protect the underlying vegetation and soils from the impact of that use. This use is prohibited in designated WSAs, congressionally designated Wilderness areas, and other lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. This use is also prohibited in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as critical big game winter relief and winter concentration areas or areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.
Within the Cortez SRMA, Durango SRMA and Silverton SRMA, as identified in the TRFO RMP:
15. Domestic animals must be on a leash or under voice command.
Within the Cortez SRMA and the Durango SRMA as identified in the TRFO RMP:
16. You must not enter or use the area within the Phil's World Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) and Mud Springs RMZ portion of the Cortez SRMA
a. You are using the non-motorized trails within the Phil's World Area; or
b. You are a licensed hunter and acting in accordance with all rules and regulations as defined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
17. You must not enter or use the area
18. You must not build, ignite, maintain, or attend to a fire or campfire within the Animas City Mountain, Skyline and Grandview Recreation Management Zones of the Durango SRMA.
Within the Alpine Triangle as identified in the TRFO RMP and the Alpine Triangle RAMP for the GFO
19. You must not camp within 300 feet of the Animas Forks district boundary and the Gold Prince Mill National Register Districts.
20. You must not camp within 150 feet of a historic structure.
21. You must not ignite or maintain a campfire within 150 feet of a historic structure.
22. You must not ignite or maintain a campfire above 12,000 feet within the Redcloud Peak ACEC.
Within the Dolores River SRMA as identified in the TRFO RMP and the Dolores River CMP:
23. You must not use motorized watercraft from Bradfield Bridge to Bedrock.
24. You must register at a developed BLM river launch point prior to watercraft use from Bradfield Bridge to Bedrock.
25. You must not exceed posted group-size limits.
26. During overnight river trips, you must dispose human waste into a portable toilet.
27. You must not gather dead or down wood.
28. You must not have a campfire or charcoal fire without the use of a fire pan.
29. You must pack out all ashes associated with a campfire or charcoal fire.
Within the Cortez SRMA, Durango SRMA and Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area as identified in the TRFO RMP:
30. You must not enter the Chutes-n-Ladders, Summit, and Aqueduct areas of the Montezuma Triangle Recreation Management Zone within the Cortez SRMA from December 1 through April 30 each year for the protection of critical winter wildlife habitat. Travel on county roads through the areas is allowed.
31. You must not enter identified closure areas in the Animas City Mountain and Grandview Ridge Recreation Management Zones of the Durango SRMA from December 1 through April 30 each year for the protection of critical winter wildlife habitat. This closure may be opened April 15 if conditions and wildlife needs warrant.
32. You must not enter identified closure areas in the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area from December 1 through April 30 each year for the protection of critical winter wildlife habitat. This closure may be opened April 15 if conditions and wildlife needs warrant.
33. You must not enter identified closure areas in the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area from March 15 through July 31 each year for the protection of critical raptor habitat.
The following persons are exempt from this supplementary rule: Any Federal, State, local, and/or military employees acting within the scope of their official duties; members of any organized rescue or fire fighting force performing an official duty; and persons who are expressly authorized or approved by the BLM.
Any person who violates any part of this supplementary rule may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Colorado or local law.
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) seeks public comment on a proposed rule revising the Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) to incorporate new requirements for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) and update existing child safeguarding requirements. This proposed rule strengthens protections for USAID's program participants, community members, project staff, and other individuals in a position of vulnerability, and aligns and consolidates new PSEA and updated child safeguarding compliance and reporting requirements with existing requirements for Counter Trafficking in Persons.
Comments must be received no later than April 29, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by your name, company name (if any), and the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0412-AA95 for this rulemaking, via the following method:
•
Nicole Thompson, 202-286-4696,
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include “the internet address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet website under section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly known as
In summary, “USAID proposes revisions to agency regulation to incorporate new contract requirements strengthening protections for program participants, community members, project staff, and other individuals connected to USAID-funded programming. The revisions consolidate Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Child Safeguarding requirements, aligning with existing Trafficking in Persons requirements. Specifically, for applicable awards, contractors will be required to: establish minimum standards for preventing and responding to covered violations; develop and implement a compliance plan; and report alleged violations and contractor actions taken in response. These requirements will apply to all contracts, excluding personal services contracts with individuals and most commercial contracts.”
The proposal, including the summary provided herein, can be found at
USAID requests public comment on all aspects of this proposal, including specific questions highlighted below or
• When the Safeguarding Compliance Plan applies, how contractors plan to address compliance with and associated costs of new PSEA and child safeguarding requirements.
• Concerns related to potential overlap/conflict between new PSEA and child safeguarding requirements and contractors' existing policies and practices.
• Considerations related to applicability and the burden related to U.S. small businesses and small foreign entities, particularly in regards to the Compliance Plan threshold.
• Anticipated contractor reporting challenges related to safeguarding violations and suggested mitigation strategies.
Exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect cause intolerable harm and threaten USAID's mission around the world. Implementing appropriate safeguarding measures to prevent and address violations—regardless of the method, manner, or medium in which the behavior occurs or is facilitated-protects USAID program participants (also referred to as beneficiaries in the proposed regulatory language), community members, project staff, and other individuals in a position of vulnerability, while improving development outcomes and allowing for children and youth, in particular, to achieve their full development potential. This includes measures to prevent and address violations that occur in or are facilitated by digital technology (and/or other as yet unknown methods or mediums) as well as the physical world. Given rapid and continual advances in technology, USAID is using intentionally broad and inclusive language in its proposed regulatory text to ensure coverage of any and all alleged behaviors identified in this rulemaking, whether physical in the real world, or a digital harm depicted, produced, generated, or otherwise communicated.
The proposed rule also aligns with the existing Trafficking in Persons requirements (48 CFR (FAR) 52.222-50) and strengthens and consolidates the USAID-specific award requirements that establish child safeguarding standards at 48 CFR 752.7037 and standards of conduct related to preventing sexual exploitation and abuse at 48 CFR 752.7013.
The requirements in 48 CFR 752.7037 and 752.7013, cover additional forms of child abuse and sexual violence. However, a consolidated AIDAR clause is needed to establish comprehensive safeguards across all applicable USAID contracts, to provide clarity to contractors on safeguarding expectations and requirements, and to mandate the reporting of credible information related to violations to USAID and its Office of Inspector General. These requirements will work to prevent exploitation and abuse, particularly of the most vulnerable populations, and will hold individuals and organizations accountable when violations do occur. It mirrors the existing requirements in 48 CFR 52.222-50 for Trafficking in Persons for further consistency.
(1) Establishing minimum standards for contractors to prevent, detect, address, and respond to exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect;
(2) Prohibiting exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect; and
(3) Requiring a survivor-centered and/or best interest of the child approach in situations where a potential violation has occurred.
USAID is adding a new AIDAR section 722.70 titled Safeguarding Against Exploitation, Sexual Abuse, Child Abuse, and Child Neglect to implement these requirements. In furtherance of these requirements, the new AIDAR clause 752.222-7x entitled Safeguarding Against Exploitation, Sexual Abuse, Child Abuse, and Child Neglect requires that contractors:
(1) Have and implement publicly available standards, policies, or procedures that prohibit employees, agents, interns, or any other person provided access or contact with beneficiaries of foreign assistance, from engaging in any exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect of any person during the period of performance, supporting or advancing these actions, or intentionally ignoring or failing to act upon allegations of these actions;
(2) For awards exceeding $550,000, develop, implement, and maintain a compliance plan (either in conjunction with or separate from the Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan required under (48 CFR) FAR clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons) that details risk analysis and mitigation measures that will be implemented during the period of performance of the contract to prevent and address exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect through a compliance plan; and
(3) Report credible information that alleges employees, agents, interns, or any other person provided access or contact with beneficiaries, engaged in any exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect of any person during the period of performance, supported or advanced these actions, or intentionally ignored or failed to act upon allegations of these actions; and additional information on any actions planned or taken in response to the allegation; and any actions planned or taken to assess, address, or mitigate factors that contributed to the incident.
This proposed rule was drafted in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, and E.O. 13563. OMB has determined that this rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended, and is therefore not subject to review by OMB. This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
USAID does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies. The proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, USAID has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning this rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget.
The outlined information collection is an element of the proposed rule that implements USAID's new requirements for reporting and recordkeeping associated with violations and mitigation measures. The proposed rule will incorporate a new subpart 722.70 Safeguarding Against Exploitation, Sexual Abuse, Child Abuse, and Child Neglect, and the corresponding clause of the same name into the AIDAR. This rulemaking is intended to streamline reporting requirements for contractors, subcontractors, and Agency staff across the Agency's projects and operations.
The purpose of this collection is to enable USAID to respond to allegations of exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect. Contractors will be required to report credible information that alleges employees, agents, interns, or any other person provided access or contact with beneficiaries, engaged any exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect of any person, supported or advanced these actions, or intentionally ignored or failed to act upon allegations of these actions; and additional information on any actions planned or taken in response to the allegation; and any actions planned or taken to assess, address, or mitigate factors that contributed to the incident. Information submitted by contractors as part of this collection will be presumed to be confidential. USAID takes the protection of personally identifiable information (PII) seriously and takes precautions to ensure the confidentiality and security of PII consistent with USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS) chapter 508 and does not request PII in this information collection. Agency staff must only share information on individual notifications on a need-to-know basis and take steps to protect any sensitive information, including redacting sensitive information and limiting access.
Information in the notification may include: award title and number, organization name and subcontractor
For awards exceeding $550,000, the contractor must develop, implement, and maintain a compliance plan, either in conjunction with or separate from the Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan, that details risk analysis and mitigation measures that will be implemented during the period of performance of the contract to prevent and address exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect of any person. The contractor's compliance plan must be appropriate to the size and complexity of the award and to the nature and scope of the activities, including the particular risks presented by the operating context. The contractor must provide a copy of the compliance plan to the Contracting Officer upon request.
Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than April 29, 2024 using the method specified in the
Requesters may obtain a copy of the supporting statement by contacting
Government procurement.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 7 as set forth below:
Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 435.
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures that prohibit exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect, occurring during the period of performance of USAID contracts.
This subpart applies to contracts, except as specified in section 722.7005.
As used in this subpart—
Definitions for the purposes of this clause.
(a) USAID has adopted a policy prohibiting exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect, and takes a survivor-centered approach and, when a child is involved, conducts a best interest of the child determination to address such misconduct.
(b) Contractor must establish and implement a set of publicly available standards, policies, or procedures to prevent, detect, address, and respond to allegations of exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect of any person during the contract performance by its employees, agents, visitors, interns, volunteers, or any other person provided access or contact with beneficiaries of foreign assistance by the contractor.
(a) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.222-7x, Safeguarding Against Exploitation, Sexual Abuse,
(1) Contracts for personal services with individuals; or
(2) Contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services as defined in FAR 2.101, unless those contracts are anticipated to:
(i) Provide supplies or services directly to the beneficiaries of foreign assistance (
(ii) Require routine physical access to USAID space or logical access to USAID's information systems.
(b) [Reserved]
As prescribed in (48 CFR) AIDAR 722.7005, insert the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(1) Prohibit employees, agents, interns, or any other person provided access or contact with beneficiaries of foreign assistance, from engaging in any exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect of any person during the period of performance, supporting or advancing these actions, or intentionally ignoring or failing to act upon allegations of these actions;
(2) Be consistent with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's Six Core Principles Relating to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, as amended, available at
(3) Require reporting of suspicions or concerns related to violations of the prohibitions in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause to the Contractor;
(4) Require a “survivor-centered approach” for responding to alleged violations of the prohibitions. Such an approach must ensure the survivor's dignity, experiences, considerations, needs, and resiliencies are placed at the center of the process;
(5) When a child is involved, require a “best interest of the child determination” for responding to alleged violations of the prohibitions. This determination considers the best possible outcome for a vulnerable child who has been exposed to violence, abuse, exploitation or neglect;
(6) Include remedies for violations;
(7) Describe how the Contractor will monitor subcontractors, employees, agents, interns, or any other person provided access or contact with beneficiaries of foreign assistance;
(8) Detail the actions that may be taken against subcontractors, employees, agents, interns, or any other person provided access or contact under the award who commit exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect of any person or who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent it; and;
(9) Provide transparency on hiring, screening, and employment practices, including on rehiring or transfer and referencing for subsequent employers.
(c)
(1) The Contractor's compliance plan must be appropriate to the size and complexity of the contract and to the nature and scope of the activities, including the particular risks presented by the operating context. The plan must include, at a minimum, the following:
(i) Reasonable measures to reduce the risk of exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect. Where implementation of projects under this contract may involve children, this includes limiting unsupervised interactions with children and complying with applicable laws, regulations, or customs regarding harmful image-generating activities of children;
(ii) An awareness program to inform employees, agents, interns, or any other person provided access or contact with beneficiaries of foreign assistance about the requirements of this clause, including the activities prohibited, the action that will be taken in response to violations, and the mechanism(s) for reporting allegations;
(iii) A description of how beneficiaries of foreign assistance and local community members:
(A) Are made aware of the prohibited activities,
(B) May report allegations, and
(C) How paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this clause are carried out in an manner which is inclusive, culturally appropriate, and sensitive to the context;
(iv) Safe, accessible, and publicly available reporting mechanism(s) that may be integrated with any existing or similar such mechanisms, for anyone to confidentially report exploitation, sexual abuse, child abuse, and child neglect, with appropriate safeguards to protect whistle-blowers and survivors, including express protection against retaliation for reporting, and documented procedures for protecting personally identifiable information (PII) from unauthorized access and disclosure; and
(v) Appropriate measures to protect survivors of or witnesses to activities prohibited in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause and not prevent or hinder cooperating fully with Government authorities.
(2) The Contractor must provide a copy of the compliance plan to the Contracting Officer upon request.
(d)
(2) As soon as practicable, the Contractor must provide in writing, as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause:
(i) Additional information on any actions planned or taken in response to the allegation; and
(ii) Any actions planned or taken to assess, address, or mitigate factors that contributed to the incident.
(3) The Contracting Officer authorizes M/MPBP/RSC to correspond with the Contractor for further information relating to the notification.
(4) In providing any notifications under this subsection, the Contractor should not share PII, unless specifically requested by the Agency or USAID OIG.
(e)
(f)
(2) The clause must be inserted without alteration except to require subcontractors to notify the prime contractor or next higher tier subcontractor. The Contractor must forward such notifications as required in paragraph (d) of this clause.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes 2024 specifications and projected 2025 specifications for Atlantic mackerel. The implementing regulations for the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require us to publish specifications for the upcoming fishing year for each of these species and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The proposed specifications are intended to establish allowable harvest levels that will prevent overfishing, consistent with the most recent scientific information.
Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2024.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2024-0010, by the following method:
A Supplemental Information Report (SIR) was prepared for these specifications. Copies of the SIR are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The SIR is also accessible via the internet at
Carly Bari, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9150, or
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) manages the Atlantic mackerel fishery under the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP. The regulations implementing the FMP require the Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee to develop specification recommendations based upon the acceptable biological catch (ABC) advice of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). Specifications are the combined suite of commercial and recreational catch levels and management measures necessary to prevent such catch levels
The Council's final action on these specifications was delayed to its December 2023 meeting because the 2023 Atlantic mackerel stock assessment required additional peer review in late fall 2023 after the assessment indicated a change in the stock status. The stock status changed from experiencing overfishing to not experiencing overfishing. Although this change in stock status may appear to reflect an improvement in stock condition, the change is the result of significant catch reductions that were implemented in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
The preliminary stock assessment, which was still subject to peer review, showed an unexpected failure of the Atlantic mackerel stock to rebuild, and updated projections suggested that Atlantic mackerel overfishing could occur in 2023 if the full Atlantic mackerel commercial quota (
The Council's SSC met in October 2023 to review the peer-reviewed management track assessment, which showed an unexpected failure of the Atlantic mackerel stock to rebuild. Based on this information, the SSC recommended an averaged 2024-2025 ABC of 3,200 mt. These specifications also include deductions for the expected Canadian catch of 74 mt, estimated recreational catch of 2,143 mt, and estimated commercial discards of 115 mt to set a commercial quota of 868 mt. This commercial quota is a 76-percent decrease from the 2023 commercial quota.
Because of the low-resulting commercial quota, these specifications also proposed reduced Atlantic mackerel catch by instituting trip limits of 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) for all limited access permits and 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) for all open access permits. These trip limits are unchanged from those in the interim rule. When 80 percent of the commercial quota is harvested, the trip limits will be further reduced to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) for all limited access permits and 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) for open access permits. The recreational possession limit will remain status quo at 20 fish per person.
On February 1, 2023 (88 FR 6665), NMFS approved Amendment 23 to the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP and implemented a revised rebuilding plan for the Atlantic mackerel stock. The reductions in ABC and trip limits included in this proposed rule were determined to be necessary to maintain the timeline by which the Atlantic mackerel stock is rebuilt by 2032 as outlined in Amendment 23.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. In making a final determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
NMFS finds that a 15-day comment period for this action provides a reasonable opportunity for public participation in this action pursuant to section 553(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(c)), while also ensuring that the final specifications are in place before the interim measures currently in place to reduce Atlantic mackerel catch expire on April 10, 2024. The Council adopted these specifications on December 13, 2023, and submitted a preliminary draft of the supplemental information report on January 3, 2024. Substantial edits to the economic analysis were required for regional economist clearance for the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866, and E.O. 14094. The NMFS regional economist provided clearance on February 9, 2024. After incorporating that economic analysis into the rule document and having the rule reviewed by regional staff, the rule was submitted to NMFS headquarters on February 16, 2024. NMFS then submitted the rule to Commerce's Office of the General Counsel for review on February 20, 2024. Thus, NMFS has taken all diligent steps to promulgate this rule as quickly as possible but could not have published the rule sooner because the data necessary for the Council to develop these specifications was not yet finalized.
A longer comment period and subsequent potential delay in implementation past this date would be contrary to the public interest, as it could create confusion in the industry around current quotas and applicable trip limits. Comments were collected on the interim rule (88 FR 70909, October 13, 2023), which implemented the same trip limits as this action, for 30 days and no comments were submitted. While NMFS is not waiving the comment period in its entirety, a 30-day comment period here could result in the interim measures expiring, at which point the 2023 specifications would return as a replacement pursuant to the rollover provisions of the Atlantic mackerel regulations found at 50 CFR 648.22(d)(1). As noted above, the 2023 specifications were determined to exceed overfishing levels, and should those measures roll over into the 2024 fishing year there is a risk that in the high-volume Atlantic mackerel fishery there could be overfishing.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with a SIR. The proposed action would set the 2024 catch and landings limits for Atlantic mackerel
The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with the SIR. This proposed action would affect all vessels that hold any commercial permits for Atlantic mackerel. Some small entities own multiple vessels with Atlantic mackerel permits. In 2023, there were 116 limited access permits, and 1,500 open access/incidental mackerel permits, for a total of 1,616 permits. These permits were held by 1,197 entities, 1,186 of which were small business entities and 11 were classified as large businesses. A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide (North American Industry Classification System Code 11411).
The average commercial landings from 2021-2023 were 3,520 mt (2023 preliminary). This is 2,652 mt more than the proposed 868 mt commercial quota proposed in this rule. At 2022 prices, this could potentially amount to $2,382,849 less revenue annually ($1,991 less annually per entity). There is no information to suggest that the 1,186 small business entities would be differentially impacted compared to the 11 large business entities.
Due to declines in the mackerel fishery, relatively few vessels have been active in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Only 20 vessel permits had more than $10,000 in Atlantic mackerel revenues in 2022. In 2023, only 12 vessels had more than $10,000 in Atlantic mackerel revenues and obtained more than 10 percent of their 2023 ex-vessel revenues from mackerel. These vessel can be further grouped into 6 smaller operators that averaged about $33,000 in 2023 mackerel landings (averaging about $55,000 in total ex-vessel landings revenues) and 6 larger operators that averaged about $407,000 in 2023 mackerel landings (averaging about $1,179,000 in total ex-vessel landings revenues). These 6 larger vessel/operators are likely to be substantially impacted by this action. Three of those vessels belong to small entities but further revenue breakdown would likely violate the spirit of maintaining data confidentiality. Typically, NMFS would disclose data if at least three entities were included because that will usually maintain confidentiality, but in this case, even though there are three entities, NMFS is not disclosing more information because it is concerned it would violate confidentiality for those entities.
Given the relatively few vessels that have been landing more than small values of Atlantic mackerel in recent years, this action is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. There is no information that the action might impact small businesses differently than large businesses or unduly inhibit the ability of small entities to compete.
There are no new information collection requirements, including reporting or recordkeeping requirements, contained in this action.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Unless otherwise determined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, NMFS will close the commercial Atlantic mackerel fishery, which includes vessels issued an open access or limited access Atlantic mackerel permit, in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the Atlantic mackerel DAH is harvested. The closure of the commercial fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing year, with incidental catches allowed, as specified in § 648.26.
(ii) NMFS has the discretion to not implement measures outlined in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section during November and December if the Regional Administrator projects that commercial Atlantic mackerel landings will not exceed the DAH during the remainder of the fishing year.
(a)
(i) A vessel issued a Tier 1, 2, or 3 limited access mackerel permit is authorized to fish for, possess, or land up to 20,000 lb (9.098 mt) of Atlantic mackerel in or harvested from the EEZ per trip, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours, provided that the fishery has not been closed because of a commercial fishery closure, as specified in § 648.24(b)(1).
(ii) A vessel issued an open access Atlantic mackerel permit may fish for, possess, or land up to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of Atlantic mackerel in or harvested from the EEZ per trip, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours, provided that the fishery has not been closed because of a commercial fishery closure as specified in § 648.24(b)(1).
(iii) Both vessels involved in a pair trawl operation must be issued a valid Atlantic mackerel permit to fish for possess, or land Atlantic mackerel in the EEZ. Both vessels must be issued the Atlantic mackerel permit appropriate for the amount of Atlantic mackerel jointly possessed by both of the vessels participating in the pair trawl operation.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule, request for comments.
NMFS proposes revisions to regulations that implement the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This proposed action would remove a rebuilding plan for Snohomish River coho salmon from regulation, as this stock has been rebuilt and is no longer required to be managed under a rebuilding plan.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before March 14, 2024.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0138 by any of the following methods:
•
Shannon Penna, Fishery Management Specialist, at 562-980-4239, or
Regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H implement the management of West Coast salmon fisheries under the FMP in the exclusive economic zone (3 to 200 nautical miles (5.6 to 370.4 kilometers)) off the coasts of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California.
The Snohomish River coho salmon stock contributes to U.S. ocean salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon, ocean salmon fisheries off British Columbia, and marine and freshwater Puget Sound salmon fisheries. In 2018, NMFS determined that Snohomish River coho salmon was overfished under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act (MSA) (Letter from Barry A. Thom, NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator, to Chuck Tracy, Pacific Fishery Management Council Executive Director, dated June 18, 2018). The MSA requires Councils to develop and implement a rebuilding plan within two years of being notified by NMFS that a stock is overfished. The Council transmitted its recommended rebuilding plan to NMFS on October 17, 2019, which was similar to the existing management framework, to rebuild Snohomish River coho salmon.
The Council determined that the recommended rebuilding plan met the MSA requirement to rebuild the stock as quickly as possible, taking into account the status and biology of any overfished stock and the needs of fishing communities (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)). NMFS approved and implemented the Council's recommended rebuilding plan for Snohomish River coho salmon through a final rule (86 FR 9301; February 21, 2021).
In 2023, NMFS determined that Snohomish River coho salmon met the criteria in the FMP for being rebuilt and notified the Council (Letter from Jennifer Quan, NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator, to Merrick Burden, Pacific Fishery Management Council Executive Director, dated October 13, 2023). A stock is rebuilt when the 3-year geometric mean spawning escapement exceeds the level associated with the maximum sustainable yield (S
NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the MSA. This rule would update the regulations governing the salmon fishery by deleting a provision that is no longer necessary.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS has determined that a 15-day comment period for this proposed rule is appropriate to allow adequate time for public comment while also allowing for the final rule to be in effect prior to the annual preseason management process for the 2024 fishing season for ocean salmon fisheries, thereby avoiding any confusion about the management status of Snohomish River coho salmon during that preseason management process. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and pursuant to NMFS' December 29, 2015, final rule (80 FR 81194), NMFS' small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing, is $11 million in annual gross receipts. This standard applies to all businesses classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411 for commercial fishing, including all businesses classified as commercial finfish fishing (NAICS 114111), commercial shellfish fishing (NAICS 114112), and other commercial marine fishing (NAICS 114119) businesses (50 CFR 200.2; 13 CFR 121.201).
According to the Socioeconomic Assessment of the 2022 Ocean Salmon Fisheries chapter (Chapter IV) of the
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fisheries, Fishing, and Recording and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 29, 2024 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure a favorable balance of trade and compliance with export health requirements, APHIS uses information collection activities such as U.S. Origin Health Certificates and Export Health Certificates for Poultry or Hatching Eggs for Export; U.S. Interstate and International Certificates of Health Examinations for Small Animals; U.S. Origin Health Certificates for the Export of Horses from the United States to Canada; Health Certificates for the Export of Live Finfish, Mollusks, and Crustaceans (and their Gametes); Inspection and Certification of Animal Products; Undue Hardship Explanations—Animals; Applications for Approval of Inspection Facility—Environmental Certification; Annual Inspections of Inspection Facilities; Opportunities to Present Views Concerning Withdrawal of Facility Approval; Certifications to Carry Livestock; Inspections of Vessel Prior to Voyage; Operator Reports; Aircraft Cleaning and Disinfection; Country-Specific Health Certificates; and Travel Time.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection to provide FNS and WIC State agencies with an ongoing/annual data set that can be used to assess State agencies' compliance with WIC vendor management requirements and estimate State agencies' progress in eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse.
Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2024.
Comments may be submitted via email to the attention of FDP Help Desk at
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Patricia Bailey, at
FDP is a robust data collection system which aligns with current security protocols and compliance guidance, supports data storage and web components, ensures cost effectiveness, allows for data-driven decision-making, has enhanced FNS reporting capabilities, reduces grantee burden through automated calculations and consolidated reporting, and adds data validation features to reduce reporting errors.
In notice document 2024-03355, beginning on page 12812, in the of Tuesday, February 20, 2024, the table appearing on pages 12813-12815 is corrected as set forth below:
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council will hold public meetings according to the details shown below. The Council is authorized under the National Trails System Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief of the Forest Service, on matters relating to the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNT) as described in the Act.
A virtual meeting will be held April 9, 2024, 10 a.m.-2 p.m., Pacific daylight time (PDT).
All council meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held virtually. The public may join virtually via the Zoom app or the internet using the link posted on the PNT Advisory Council Meetings web page:
Jeff Kitchens, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Approve meeting minutes;
2. Discuss implementation of the comprehensive plan for the PNT; and
3. Discuss and identify future PNT Advisory Council activity.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Council. To ensure that the recommendations of the Council have taken into 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 persons with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Colorado Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene monthly virtual business meetings on Wednesday, March 20, 2024, and Wednesday, April 17, 2024, both at 3 p.m. mountain time. The purpose of the meetings is to continue working on its project on public school attendance zones in Colorado.
Wednesday, March 20 2024, and Wednesday, April 17, 2024, at 3 p.m. mountain time.
The meetings will be held via Zoom.
Barbara Delaviez, Designated Federal Official at
These committee meetings are available to the public through the meeting link above. Any interested member of the public
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara Delaviez at
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Records of meetings will be available via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable February 18, 2024.
David Williams, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4338.
On February 6, 2020, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the 2018-2019 AD administrative review of the
On October 29, 2021, Commerce published its
The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF) appealed Commerce's
In its final remand redetermination, issued in August 2023, Commerce (1) evaluated Jinlong's eligibility for a separate rate based on its SRC and assigned Jinlong a weighted-average dumping margin based on adverse facts available (AFA) in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), because Jinlong did not cooperate to the best of its ability by failing to respond to the AD questionnaire; and (2) recalculated the dumping margin assigned to the eligible separate-rate companies not selected for individual examination.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its
Because
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that were exported by the non-individually-examined separate rate respondents
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by the non-individually examined separate rate respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), where appropriate. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review at the AD rate noted in the table above.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Notice of application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review for the United States Surimi Commission, Application No. 90-9A007.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA) of the International Trade Administration, has received an application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review (Certificate). This notice summarizes the proposed application and seeks public comments on whether the Certificate should be issued.
Joseph Flynn, Director, OTEA, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325. OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(a), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the application in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.
Written comments should be sent to
Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number No. 90-9A007.”
1. Add the following entities as Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)):
2. Remove the following companies as Members of the Certificate:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Shanghai Yueda Nails Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.
Applicable February 28, 2024.
Bob Palmer or Bill Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 or (202) 482-4868, respectively.
On August 25, 2023, Commerce published the
The products covered by the
All issues raised by interested parties in briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our verification findings, review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
In the
In our
For the company subject to this review, which established its eligibility for a separate rate, Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period from August 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for the final results of this review to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For Shanghai Yueda, whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the
We will instruct CBP to apply an
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Shanghai Yueda, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed in the table above; (2) for previously examined Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific cash deposit rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meetings.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.
The meeting is scheduled for March 19, 2024 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and March 20, 2023 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. For the latest agenda please refer to the SAB website:
The meeting location is at the Westin Center City, Washington, DC, 1400 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. The exact meeting location and a link for the webinar registration will be posted, when available, on the SAB website:
Casey Stewart, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11360, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 240-381-0833; Email:
The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an enhancement of survival permit, including an associated hatchery and genetic management plan.
This notice announces the availability of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) on the issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Enhancement of Survival Permit to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the operation of the Fall Creek Hatchery coho salmon program. The Fall Creek Hatchery coho salmon program is operated under an associated Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP). This notice also announces that NMFS has decided to issue a permit (15755-2M) to CDFW for activities described in their HGMP, and has authorized the HGMP for the Fall Creek Hatchery coho salmon program in the Klamath River watershed in California.
The application, permit, final HGMP, Final EA, and related documents are available for review by appointment at: California Coastal Area Office, 1655 Heindon Rd, Arcata, California 95521.
Jeff Abrams; phone: (707) 825-5186; fax: (707) 825-4840; email:
The following ESA-listed species are covered in this notice:
Coho salmon (
On March 27, 2023, NMFS announced in the
The HGMP covers activities related to the artificial production of coho salmon at Fall Creek Hatchery during the transition of the hatchery coho salmon program from Iron Gate Hatchery, and for 8 years after dam removal. NMFS will use the information in this HGMP to evaluate hatchery impacts on salmon listed under the ESA. Monitoring and in-river research activities, also included in the application, could result in take of SONCC coho salmon. The primary goal of an HGMP is to devise biologically based hatchery management strategies that ensure the conservation and recovery of salmon and steelhead species. Through implementation of this HGMP, and compliance with the ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, the Fall Creek Hatchery coho salmon program will operate to conserve ESA-listed SONCC coho salmon.
The Fall Creek Hatchery coho salmon program will culture coho salmon of the Upper Klamath Population Unit. This unit is part of the SONCC Evolutionarily Significant Unit that is listed as threatened under ESA. The HGMP incorporates principles of hatchery operations developed by the Hatchery Scientific Review Groups of the Columbia River and California. The primary purpose of the Fall Creek Hatchery coho salmon program is to protect the genetic resources of the Upper Klamath Population Unit and reduce extinction risks prior to and 8 years after the removal of the four Klamath River dams. The purpose would be achieved by integrating natural origin adults into broodstock and using a genetically based spawning
The secondary purpose of the Fall Creek Hatchery coho salmon program is to provide adult coho salmon that could disperse to newly accessible habitat (76 miles or 122 kilometers) made available following dam removal. The potential dispersal of adult coho salmon results from Fall Creek Hatchery origin coho salmon straying to other tributaries and by releasing surplus adult coho salmon back to the mainstem Klamath River near Fall Creek.
Take of adult and juvenile coho salmon associated with permit 15755-2M is described in the NMFS permit and particularly detailed in table 1 of the permit. Permit 15755-2M expires on December 31, 2031.
This notice is provided under National Environmental Policy Act regulations and NMFS ESA permit regulations to inform the public that the Final EA, HGMP, and associated documents are available for review.
Enhancement permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The USPTO invites comments on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
Such individuals and businesses may also submit various communications to the USPTO, including providing additional information needed to process a request to delete a particular filing basis from an application or to divide an application identifying multiple goods and/or services into two or more separate applications. Applicants may seek a six-month extension of time to file a statement that the mark is in use in commerce or submit a petition to revive an application that was abandoned for failure to submit a timely response to an office action or a timely statement of use or extension request. In some circumstances, an applicant may expressly abandon an application by filing a request for withdrawal of the application.
The rules implementing the Trademark Act are set forth in 37 CFR part 2. These rules mandate that each register entry include the mark, the goods and/or services in connection with which the mark is used, ownership information, dates of use, and certain other information. The USPTO also provides similar information concerning pending applications. The register and pending application information may be accessed by an individual or by businesses to determine the availability of a mark. By accessing the USPTO's information, parties may reduce the possibility of initiating use of a mark previously adopted by another. As a result, the Federal trademark registration process is intended to reduce unnecessary litigation, and its accompanying costs and burdens.
The information in this collection is used to process the substantive submissions made during prosecution of the trademark application. The submissions in this information collection are a matter of public record and are used by the public for a variety of private business purposes related to establishing and enforcing trademark rights. The information is accessible online, through the USPTO website, as well as through various USPTO facilities.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website,
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The USPTO invites comments on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The USPTO seeks to collect information about the public's use of the PTRCs and training provided through the PTRC program. The PTRC Program requirements stipulate that all participating libraries must submit quarterly metrics on the public's use of PTRC services and public outreach efforts provided by the PTRCs. To facilitate that requirement, the USPTO electronically collects these metrics on a quarterly basis. This information collection enables the USPTO to see how customers are being served by the PTRCs. It also allows USPTO to determine what changes may be needed in the types of services provided and what trainings the PTRC Program Office should offer to PTRC librarians.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website,
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0060 (National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Application). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the information collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this information collection must be received on or before April 29, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
Request for additional information should be directed to Linda Hosler, National Partnerships Team, Office of the Chief Communications Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8514; or by email at
The National Medal of Technology and Innovation (NMTI) is the highest honor for technological achievement bestowed by the President of the United States on America's leading innovators. Established by an Act of Congress in 1980, the Medal of Technology was first awarded in 1985.
The National Medal of Technology and Innovation Evaluation Committee, a distinguished independent committee appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, reviews and evaluates the merit of all candidates nominated through an open, competitive solicitation process. The committee makes its recommendations for Medal candidates to the Secretary of Commerce who, in turn, makes recommendations to the President for final selection.
This information collection covers data gathered in the NMTI Nomination Application, which the public uses to nominate an individual's, team's, or company's extraordinary leadership and innovation in technological achievement and outstanding contribution to strengthening the nation's technological workforce. The application collects general and biographical information about the nominee, general information about the nominator, and a description of the nominee's contribution/achievements, and must be accompanied by up to six letters of recommendation or support from individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the cited achievement(s).
The information in this information collection can be submitted electronically through the USPTO website via the online portal.
• professors (physical scientists) (OES 19-2099—
• civil engineers (OES 17-2051—
• computer and information research scientists (OES 15-1221—
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be aware that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask in your comment to withhold PII from public view, USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on April 9, 2024, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time), the Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC 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 MRAC will discuss current topics and developments in the areas of central counterparty risk and governance, market structure, climate-related risk, and innovative and emerging technologies affecting the derivatives and related financial markets.
The meeting will be held on April 9, 2024, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). Please note that the meeting may end early if the MRAC has completed its business. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by April 16, 2024.
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 “Market Risk Advisory Committee,” through the CFTC website at
Tamika Bent, MRAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (646) 746-3930 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,
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps) is proposing to revise an information collection.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) Electronically through
(2) By mail sent to: AmeriCorps, Attention Amy Borgstrom, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525.
(3) By hand delivery or by courier to the AmeriCorps mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (2) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through
Andrea Robles, Office of Research and Evaluation, AmeriCorps, (202) 606-6687,
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. The information collection will be used in the same manner as the existing application; however, a revision is being sought to accommodate increased pilot testing. AmeriCorps also seeks to continue using the current generic clearance until the revised collection is approved by OMB. The current expiration of the OMB Control Number is April 30, 2024.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will occur.
The RFPB will hold an open meeting to the public on Wednesday, March 6, 2024 from 8:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.
The in-person meeting will be held at the RFPB office located at 5109 Leesburg Pike, Suite 501, Falls Church, Virginia 22041. Additionally, the meeting will be held via videoconference. Participant access information will be provided after registering. Pre-meeting registration is required. See guidance in
Eric Flowers, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 102-3.140 and section 102-3.155.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer, the Reserve Forces Policy Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its March 6, 2024 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate relevant information related to strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, effectiveness, and accessibility of the Reserve Component (RC).
Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Education for Seapower Advisory Board (E4SAB) will take place.
The meeting is open to the public and will be held on Thursday, April 4, 2024 from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Zone (ET).
The open meeting will be held at the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island. The meeting will be handicap accessible. Escort is required.
Dr. Kendy Vierling, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000, 703-695-4589,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (formerly 5 U.S.C. App.), as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and Title 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Department of the Navy, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, hereafter “Board,” will take place.
Open to the public, March 19, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. eastern time zone (ET). Closed to the public, March 19, 2024, from 11 a.m. to noon (12 p.m.) ET.
This meeting will be held at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. Pending prevailing health directives, the meeting will be handicap accessible. Escort is required.
Major Alexandra Fitzgerald, USMC, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, 410-293-1503,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 United States Code (U.S.C.), appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Advisory Committee Management Final Rule (41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 102-3).
Current details on the board of visitors may be found at
The closed meeting from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. on March 19, 2024, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative or minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor or conduct violations within the Brigade, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, a portion of this meeting will be closed to the public, as the discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the closed meeting to the public. The Principal Deputy General Counsel has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the closed meeting from 11 a.m. to noon (12 p.m.) will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c) (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, U.S.C.
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 revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 29, 2024.
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 Carrie Clarady, 202-245-6347.
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.
For the 2024-25 school year, the survey will ask school staff about a wide range of topics, including, but not limited to, staffing, learning recovery, tutoring, usage of federal funds, facilities, transportation, school environment issues, and overall principal and staff experiences, in addition to repeating items from the previous collections. It is planned that some new content will be rotated in (and some rotated out) monthly. This package includes details regarding the methodology and operations, as well as potential content areas and an item bank of potential items that can be asked any month.
The School Pulse Panel study is one of the few reliable, nationally representative, quick-turnaround studies that produces data on U.S. public schools. The sample design for the 2024-25 collection will roughly be the same as the 2023-24 collection, with 4,000 public elementary, middle, high, and combined-grade schools in an initial sample and 4,000 public elementary, middle, high, and combined-grade schools in a reserve sample. These schools will be selected via a random stratified sampling approach.
This submission will undergo a 60-day public comment period, followed by an additional 30-day public comment period. We continue to make revisions to the communication materials (Appendix A) and will present final versions for the 30-day comment period. Items in the Item Bank (Appendix B) that have not already been approved are consider draft and will undergo cognitive testing and revision before final administration. Final instruments for the August, September, and October 2024 surveys (Appendix C1) will be added to this package during the 30-day public comment, to be posted in late spring 2024. Final items will be submitted to OMB through a change request. Subsequent quarterly instruments will also be posted for 30-day comment in the months immediately preceding their administration, potentially followed by change requests to allow for small changes in items as deemed necessary by cognitive testing.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 March 29, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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.
1. On August 28, 2023, pursuant to § 41.2 of the Commission's regulations,
2. In this order, pursuant to § 41.3 of the Commission's regulations,
3. The Audit Report summarizes the review by Enforcement's Division of Audits and Accounting (DAA), first announced in this docket on April 21, 2021, of ComEd's compliance with: (1) the approved terms, rates, and conditions of its transmission formula rate mechanism as provided in Attachment H-13A of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff; (2) the accounting requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees under 18 CFR part 101 (2022) ; (3) the reporting requirements of the FERC Form No. 1, Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others, under 18 CFR 141.1 (2022); and (4) the requirements in Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and Licensees under 18 CFR part 125 (2022).
4. As described in the Delegated Order accompanying the Audit Report, ComEd notified DAA on June 29, 2023 that ComEd disagreed with and expected to contest DAA's findings and recommendations pertaining to: (1) the asset retirement obligations (ARO) to the extent that the ARO finding and recommendations are not held in abeyance; (2) the accounting misclassifications related to internal labor costs for remediation at manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites; and (3) the allocation of overhead costs to construction work in progress (CWIP).
5. The Delegated Order stated that it served as notice, pursuant to part 41 of the Commission's regulations,
6. As described below, on August 28, 2023, ComEd timely filed a response to the Delegated Order. On September 8, 2023, Enforcement staff filed an answer to ComEd's response. On September 15, 2023, ComEd filed an answer to Enforcement staff's answer.
7. In its response to the Delegated Order, ComEd elected Commission review by means of the shortened paper hearing procedures for two issues: (1) the accounting treatment of AROs (Audit Report Issue 3 and Recommendations 8-12); and (2) the accounting treatment of MGP site remediation costs (Audit Report Issue 7 and Recommendations 34-43).
8. First, ComEd asserts that the Audit Report raises disputed issues of material fact concerning the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP because the Audit Report contends that ComEd's “processes and procedures for allocating labor and related overhead costs to construction were not consistent with Commission accounting regulations,” and “may have led to overstated construction costs.”
9. Second, ComEd asserts that there also are disputed issues of material fact concerning the data on which the Audit Report relies. ComEd explains that the Audit Report contends that its analysis was based on “interviews of a randomized sample of ComEd's employees whose labor costs were allocated to construction projects during the audit period and a review of a sample of timesheets associated with the employees.”
(1) Who was interviewed, how were they selected, and what were they asked?
(2) What timesheets were reviewed and what did they reveal? and (3) Did the material reviewed support or contradict the Audit Report's conclusions?
10. Third, ComEd asserts that the Audit Report's recommendation to remedy this issue—to retain an independent third-party entity to conduct a representative labor-time study for allocation of overhead costs incurred in 2023—raises disputed issues of material fact.
11. Finally, ComEd asserts that the Audit Report's remedy—to remediate the allocation of overhead costs to accounts dating back to 2017—raises disputed issues of material fact.
12. ComEd suggests that it could be beneficial to employ a settlement judge procedure prior to the trial-type hearing with the hope that a negotiated resolution of the overhead costs issue might be achievable.
13. Enforcement staff filed an answer asserting that ComEd's response fails to identify any disputed issue of material fact and, if such an issue had been identified, fails to meet the additional requirement of showing why a trial-type hearing with cross-examination of witnesses would be necessary to resolve the issue, rather than a paper hearing.
14. Enforcement staff contends that there are no disputed issues of material fact because Enforcement staff and ComEd agree as to what ComEd did and did not do to allocate overhead costs.
15. Enforcement staff further contends that ComEd's purported questions are general and abstract, with no identification of a factual issue that ComEd contends is disputed, no attempt to show that any such disputed fact is “material” to a matter presently before the Commission to be decided, and no explanation of why such an issue requires live witness testimony as opposed to resolution through a paper hearing.
16. Enforcement staff asserts that, given there are no material issues of fact to resolve regarding ComEd's allocation of overhead costs, the Commission is left to resolve only a question of law: Did ComEd's allocation of overhead costs comply with the Commission's accounting regulations? Enforcement staff asserts that it does not believe that ComEd complied with the Commission's regulations because it did not allocate overhead costs based on actual time or a study of actual employee time.
17. With respect to ComEd's request that the Commission employ settlement
ComEd asserts that, under the Commission's regulations, the issue is whether ComEd's method of allocating overhead construction costs “reasonably appli[ed]” those costs to “particular jobs or units,” so that “each job or unit shall bear its equitable proportion of such costs.”
18. ComEd asserts that the Audit Report is premised on factual conclusions based on Enforcement staff's interviews.
19. ComEd states that it continues to think that settlement judge procedures could be beneficial because a mediator can sometimes help adverse parties find a resolution.
20. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2022), prohibits an answer to an answer unless otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We accept ComEd's answer
21. In Order No. 675, the Commission amended its Part 41 regulations to expand due process by allowing an audited person who disputes findings or proposed remedies contained in an audit report to elect a shortened paper hearing procedure or a trial-type hearing to challenge disputed audit matters.
22. Pursuant to § 41.3 of the Commission's regulations,
23. In accordance with § 41.3, ComEd and any other interested entity, including Enforcement staff, shall file, within 45 days of this order, an initial memorandum that addresses the relevant facts and applicable law that support the position or positions taken regarding the matters at issue.
24. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, and service can be found at:
25. With respect to the contested issue concerning the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP (Issue 4 in the Audit Report and Recommendations 13-21), we find that ComEd has raised issues of material fact that cannot be resolved based on the record before us and that are more appropriately addressed in a trial-type hearing. Therefore, pursuant to § 41.7 of the Commission's regulations,
26. Any interested entity seeking to participate in this trial-type hearing shall file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
27. While we are setting the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP for a trial-type evidentiary hearing,
(A) A paper hearing and related procedures are hereby established concerning two contested issues, the accounting treatment of AROs and MGP site remediation costs, as set forth in the body of this order.
(B) A trial-type hearing and related procedures, and settlement procedures are hereby established concerning one contested issue, the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP, as set forth in the body of this order.
(C) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred on the Commission by section 402(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act and the Federal Power Act (FPA), particularly § 205, 206 and 301 thereof, and pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and the regulations under the FPA (18 CFR chapter I), a public hearing shall be held concerning the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP, as discussed in the body of this order. However, the hearing will be held in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge procedures, as discussed in Ordering Paragraphs (D) and (E) below.
(D) Pursuant to Rule 603 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.603, the Chief Judge is hereby directed to appoint a settlement judge in this proceeding within 45 days of the date of this order. Such settlement judge shall have all powers and duties enumerated in Rule 603 and shall convene a settlement conference as soon as practicable after the Chief Judge designates the settlement judge. If parties decide to request a specific judge, they must make their request to the Chief Judge within five days of the date of this order.
(E) Within 60 days of the appointment of the settlement judge, the settlement judge shall file a report with the Commission and the Chief Judge on the status of the settlement discussions. Based on this report, the Chief Judge shall provide participants with additional time to continue their settlement discussions, if appropriate, or assign this case to a presiding judge for a trial-type evidentiary hearing, if appropriate. If settlement discussions continue, the settlement judge shall file a report at least every 60 days thereafter, informing the Commission and the Chief Judge of participants' progress toward settlement.
(F) If settlement judge procedures fail and a trial-type evidentiary hearing is to be held, a presiding judge, to be designated by the Chief Judge, shall, within 45 days of the date of the presiding judge's designation, convene a prehearing conference in these proceedings in a hearing room of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or remotely (by telephone or electronically), as appropriate. Such a conference shall be held for the purpose of establishing a procedural schedule. The presiding judgeis authorized to establish procedural dates, and to rule on all motions (except motions to dismiss) as provided in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
By the Commission. Commissioner Danly is not participating.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to remove polytetrafluoroethylene (CAS No. 9002-84-0) from the current list of inert ingredients approved for use in food use and nonfood use pesticide products because this inert ingredient has been identified as a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) that is no longer used in any registered pesticide product.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0041, online at
Charles Smith, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you engage in activities related to the registration of pesticide products, including but not limited to, the use of approved inert ingredients in registered pesticide products. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Entities engaging in the formulation and preparation of agricultural and household pest control chemicals or pesticide and other agricultural and household pest control chemicals or inert manufacturers and those who make proprietary inert ingredient formulations or pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing generally (NAICS code 325320).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either person listed under
This action is issued under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y.
EPA is considering removing from the inert ingredient list the chemical polytetrafluoroethylene (CAS No. 9002-84-0), also known as Teflon®. All pesticide products that initially used polytetrafluoroethylene as an inert ingredient have been cancelled or reformulated to no longer contain polytetrafluoroethylene. EPA believes it is appropriate to remove polytetrafluoroethylene from the inert ingredient list to prevent the introduction of this PFAS into new pesticide formulations without additional EPA review.
1.
2.
Most pesticide products contain substances in addition to the active ingredient(s) that are referred to as inert ingredients or sometimes as “other ingredients.” An inert ingredient generally is any substance (or group of similar substances) other than an active ingredient that is intentionally included in a pesticide product. Examples of inert ingredients include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, aerosol propellants, fragrances, and dyes. Additional information about inert ingredients, including requirements, guidance and the InertFinder tool, can be accessed at
EPA maintains a list of approved inert ingredients, available at
PFAS are synthetic organic compounds that do not occur naturally in the environment but have widespread use in commerce. The strong carbon-fluorine bonds of PFAS make some of them resistant to degradation and thus highly persistent in the environment. Some PFAS have been detected in wildlife and in humans, indicating that at least some PFAS have the ability to bioaccumulate. Thus, exposure to PFAS is an urgent public health and environmental issue in the United States. As part of its strategic roadmap to address risks posed by PFAS (
As part of the “whole-of-agency” approach to reduce PFAS use and releases, EPA has reviewed the Agency's list of chemical substances that have been approved for use as inert ingredients in pesticide products to determine whether any of these inert ingredients are PFAS. Based on that review, EPA is proposing to remove polytetrafluoroethylene (CAS No. 9002-84-0) from the current list of inert ingredients approved for use in food and nonfood pesticide products because it is a PFAS, and it is no longer used in currently registered pesticide products. This includes the revocation of the tolerance exemption for polytetrafluoroethylene under 40 CFR 180.960.
Once an inert ingredient is removed from the list, any proposed future use of the inert ingredient would need to be supported by data provided to and reviewed by the EPA as part of a new inert ingredient submission request. The type of data needed to evaluate a new inert ingredient may include, among others, studies to evaluate potential carcinogenicity, adverse reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, genotoxicity as well as environmental effects associated with any chemical substance that is persistent or bioaccumulative. Information regarding the inert ingredient approval process may be found at
EPA suggests that pesticide registrants review their records to ensure that the chemical substance, listed by chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS No.), in the docket for this action is no longer used as an inert ingredient in their registered pesticide products. While EPA has endeavored to carefully review its records, if a pesticide registrant is aware of a registered product containing polytetrafluoroethylene, that registrant should contact the Agency directly, using the contact listed under
Similarly, producers of proprietary mixtures currently approved for use as inert ingredients in pesticide products should also review their records to ensure that the chemical substance listed in the docket for this action is, in fact, not currently used in their proprietary mixtures.
After the close of the comment period, EPA will consider all comments received and determine an appropriate final action.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an order dated January 30, 2024, granting in part and denying in part a petition dated June 1, 2023, from Sierra Club. The petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) to the Salt River Project Agricultural Power District (SRP) Agua Fria Generating Station for its electricity generating station located in Glendale, Arizona.
Catherine Valladolid, EPA Region 9, (415) 947-4103,
The EPA received a petition from Sierra Club dated June 1, 2023, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. P0009346, issued by MCAQD to SRP Agua Fria Generating Station in Glendale, Arizona. On January 30, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition. The order itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than April 29, 2024.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of and soliciting public comments on the list of candidates under consideration for selection as
Submit your comments on or before March 14, 2024.
Submit comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0613, through the
The Designated Federal Official (DFO) is Tamue Gibson, Mission Support Division (7602M), Office of Program Support, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number: (202) 564-7642; email address:
The Agency is seeking public comments on scientific and technical experts that EPA is considering for service as
EPA established the SACC in 2016 in accordance with TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2625(o), to provide independent advice and expert consultation with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues relating to the implementation of TSCA. The SACC operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 10, and supports activities under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, and disposal of the subject chemical substance, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA.
Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Members of the public should also be aware that personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted on the internet at
You may subscribe to the following listserv for alerts regarding this and other SACC-related activities:
EPA is planning this SACC peer review of the Agency's evaluation of the risks from formaldehyde being conducted to inform risk management decisions under TSCA. OPPT collaborated with OPP to develop hazard assessments for human and ecological health. EPA expects to ask the SACC to consider and review these joint hazard assessments in addition to the OPPT exposure and risk characterizations. This SACC peer review is in addition to prior external peer reviews by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the EPA's Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) and SACC peer reviews of related scientific issues. The Agency is leveraging these peer reviews to support further development of the risk evaluation of formaldehyde. The TSCA risk evaluation of formaldehyde is expected to comprise several modules (
Recommendations from the formaldehyde SACC review will be considered in the development of the TSCA risk evaluation and may inform other EPA efforts related to the assessment and regulation of formaldehyde. The Agency will be seeking SACC review of its data analyses and methodologies relevant to human health hazard and exposure analyses that have not been previously peer reviewed. For additional information, please see the
EPA is currently seeking public comments on all interested and available candidates, without prescreening for ethics concerns. However, SACC members and
The selection of scientists to serve as
Numerous qualified candidates are often identified for SACC reviews. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications, and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives across reviewers.
The liquidation of the assets for each receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receiverships will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receiverships shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of any of the receiverships, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and be sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Section, 600 North Pearl, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of the above-mentioned receiverships will be considered which are not sent within this timeframe.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
60-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking public comments concerning an information collection known as the “American Survey of Mortgage Borrowers (ASMB),” which has been assigned control number 2590-0015 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on July 31, 2025.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before April 29, 2024.
Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `American Survey of Mortgage Borrowers, (No. 2024-N-4)' ” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
FHFA will post all public comments received without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA website at
Jonathan Spader, Manager, National Mortgage Database Program,
FHFA is seeking OMB clearance under the PRA for a collection of information known as the “American Survey of Mortgage Borrowers” (ASMB). The ASMB, conducted annually or biennially, is a voluntary survey of individuals who currently have a first
FHFA is also seeking clearance to conduct cognitive testing interviews that pre-test iterations of the survey questionnaire and related materials from time to time. The Agency uses information collected through that process to assist in drafting and modifying the survey questions and instructions, as well as the related communications, to read in the way that will be most readily understood by the survey respondents and that will be most likely to elicit usable responses. Such information is also used to help the Agency decide on how best to organize and format the survey questionnaires.
The American Survey of Mortgage Borrowers is a component of the “National Mortgage Database” (NMDB®) Program, which is a joint effort of FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (jointly, “the agencies”). The NMDB Program is designed to satisfy the Congressionally-mandated requirements of section 1324(c) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act.
As a means of fulfilling those and other statutory requirements, as well as to support policymaking and research regarding the residential mortgage markets, FHFA and CFPB jointly established the NMDB Program in 2012. The Program is designed to provide comprehensive information about the U.S. mortgage market and has three primary components: (1) the NMDB; (2) the quarterly National Survey of Mortgage Originations (NSMO); and (3) the ASMB.
The NMDB is a de-identified loan-level database of closed-end first-lien residential mortgage loans that is representative of the market as a whole, contains detailed loan-level information on the terms and performance of the mortgages and the characteristics of the associated borrowers and properties, is continually updated, has a historical component dating back to 1998, and provides a sampling frame for surveys to collect additional information. The core data in the NMDB are drawn from a random 1-in-20 sample of all closed-end first-lien mortgages outstanding at any time between January 1998 and the present in the files of Experian, one of the three national credit repositories, with a random sample of mortgages newly reported to Experian added each quarter.
The NMDB draws additional information on mortgages in the NMDB datasets from other existing sources, including Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data that are maintained by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), property valuation models, and administrative data files maintained by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and by federal agencies. FHFA also obtains data from the two surveys conducted as part of the program—the NSMO and the ASMB. The NSMO is a quarterly survey that provides critical and timely information on newly-originated mortgages and associated borrowers that are not available from other sources, including: the range of nontraditional and subprime mortgage products being offered, the methods by which these mortgages are being marketed, and the characteristics of borrowers for these types of loans.
While the NSMO provides information on newly-originated mortgages, the purpose of the ASMB is to collect voluntary feedback directly from mortgage borrowers about their experience with their mortgage and property. ASMB respondents are representative of the overall population of borrowers with a mortgage loan, including those who recently took out a loan and those who have had their loan for multiple years. The feedback collected by the ASMB includes information about a range of topics related to maintaining a mortgage and property, such as borrowers' experiences with managing their mortgage, responding to financial stressors, insuring against risks, seeking assistance from federally-sponsored programs and other sources, and terminating a mortgage loan.
From 2016 through 2018, the ASMB questionnaire was sent once annually to a stratified random sample of 10,000 borrowers with mortgages in the NMDB. FHFA did not undertake the ASMB during 2019 but sent the survey again in the fall of 2020 with a specific focus on the experiences of borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic using a stratified random sample of 10,000 borrowers. The 2020 survey was substantially similar to the 2018 survey, except it included a number of questions specifically relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects. The 2022 survey was similar to the 2020 survey in its focus on how the pandemic impacted borrowers and extended the focus to the experiences of those who used forbearance. The 2023 survey focused on mortgage borrowers' experiences with flood risk and flood insurance. In 2023, the ASMB had a 27 percent overall response rate from its stratified random sample of 10,000 borrowers with mortgages in the NMDB. The 2024 ASMB survey will focus on existing borrowers' experiences with higher mortgage rates and non-mortgage costs like insurance and property maintenance.
When fully processed, the information collected through the ASMB will be used, in combination with information obtained from existing sources in the NMDB, to assist FHFA in understanding how the performance of existing mortgages is influencing the residential mortgage market, including how existing borrowers are affected by higher interest rates, the extent to which existing borrowers' are experiencing higher non-mortgage costs, borrowers' understanding and management of escrow accounts, and how these factors influence mortgage performance and homeownership outcomes. This important, but otherwise unavailable, information will assist FHFA in the supervision of its regulated entities (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks) and in the development and implementation of appropriate and effective policies and
This information collection comprises two components: (1) the ASMB survey; and (2) the pre-testing of future survey questionnaires and related materials through the use of cognitive testing. FHFA conducted the survey annually from 2016 through 2018 and again in 2020, 2022 and 2023, but did not conduct the survey in 2019 nor 2021. FHFA assumes that it will conduct the survey once annually over the next three years and that it will conduct two rounds of pre-testing on each year of survey materials.
FHFA has analyzed the total hour burden on members of the public associated with conducting the survey (4,200 hours) and with pre-testing the survey materials (24 hours) and estimates the total annual hour burden imposed on the public by this information collection to be 4,224 hours for each annual survey. The estimate for each phase of the collection was calculated as follows:
FHFA estimates that the ASMB questionnaire will be sent to 10,000 recipients each time it is conducted. Although it expects that only 20 to 30 percent of those surveys will be returned, FHFA has calculated the burden estimates below as if all of the surveys will be returned. Based on the reported experience of respondents to earlier ASMB questionnaires, FHFA estimates that it will take each respondent 25 minutes to complete each survey, including the gathering of necessary materials to respond to the questions. This results in a total annual burden estimate of 4,200 hours for the survey phase of this collection (1 survey per year × 10,000 respondents per survey × 25 minutes per respondent = 4,200 hours).
FHFA estimates that it will sponsor 2 rounds of 12 cognitive interviews prior to conducting each annual survey for a total of 24 cognitive interview participants. It estimates the participation time for each cognitive interview participant to be one hour, resulting in a total annual burden estimate of 24 hours for the pre-testing phase of the collection (2 focus groups per year × 12 participants in each group × 1 hour per participant = 24 hours).
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Shipper Advisory Committee (NSAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee advises the Federal Maritime Commission. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting information, insight, and expertise pertaining to conditions in the ocean freight delivery system relevant to the Commission.
The Committee will meet in-person in Long Beach, CA, on March 6, 2024, from 2:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. Please note that this meeting may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at the Long Beach Convention Center located at 300 E Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802. This meeting will follow the TPM Conference and will be open to the public. Members of the public do not need to register for the TPM Conference in order to attend the NSAC meeting. The meeting will also
Mr. Dylan Richmond, Designated Federal Officer of the National Shipper Advisory Committee, phone: (202) 523-5810; email:
The Committee will receive an update from each of its subcommittees. The Committee will also take public comment in the meeting. The next section will describe comments the NSAC requests from members of the public.
• What issues in your supply chain are the most important/troubling/in need of attention for you?
• What issues do you want to see NSAC address?
• What issues do you want to see the FMC address?
Comments are most helpful to the NSAC if they address the above questions and will be limited to 3 minutes each.
Members of the public may also submit written comments to NSAC at any time. Comments should be addressed to NSAC, c/o Dylan Richmond, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol St. NW, Washington, DC 20573 or
A copy of all meeting documentation, including meeting minutes, will be available at
By the Commission.
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the proposed extension to Performance Data for State Grants for Assistive Technology Program Annual Progress Report (OMB Control Number 0985-0042).
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by March 29, 2024.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Robert Groenendaal,
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506), the Administration for Community Living (ACL) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. Section 4 of the 21st Century Assistive Technology Act (29 U.S.C. 3003) authorizes grants to public agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (states and territories). With
National aggregation of data related to measurable goals is necessary for the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (31 U.S.C. 1115) as well as an Annual Report to Congress. Therefore, this data collection instrument provides a way for all 56 grantees—50 U.S. states, DC, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to collect and report data on their performance in a consistent manner, including a uniform survey to be given to consumers. This uniform survey is included as part of the data collection package.
Section 8(d) of the 21st Century Assistive Technology Act (29 U.S.C. 3006(d)) requires that ACL submit to Congress an annual report on the activities conducted under the Act and an analysis of the progress of the states and outlying areas in meeting their measurable goals. This report must include a compilation and summary of the data collected under section 4(f) (29 U.S.C. 3003(f)). In order to make this possible, states and territories must provide their data uniformly. This data collection instrument was developed to ensure that all 56 states and territories report data in a consistent manner in alignment with the requirements of section 4(f) (29 U.S.C. 3003(f)).
ACL will use the information collected via this instrument to:
(1) Complete the annual report to Congress required by the 21st Century Assistive Technology Act;
(2) Comply with reporting requirements under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act; and
(3) Assess the progress of states and territories regarding measurable goals.
Data collected from the grantees will provide a national description of activities funded under the AT Act to increase the access to and acquisition of AT devices and services through statewide AT programs for individuals with disabilities and older adults. Data collected from grantees will also provide information for usage by Congress, the Department, and the public.
In addition, ACL will use this data to inform program management, monitoring, and technical assistance efforts. States and territories will be able to use the data for internal management and program improvement.
A 60-day
The date of submittal to the
Proposed overall updates to the Assistive Technology (AT) Annual Progress Report (APR) information collection (IC) instrument and instruction manual to align with the reauthorization of the Assistive Technology Act.
(1)
(2) The Illinois Assistive Technology Program (IATP) supports the proposed changes to the Annual Progress Report. We greatly appreciate the fact that there are no additional data collection elements that would be burdensome to IATP and negatively impact our ability to provide quality direct services to customers. If you have any questions, please reach out to me.
(3)
As stated above, this information collection has 3 pieces:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Clerk of Court, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08W-25A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our website at:
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Office of Global Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of public listening session; request for comments.
The listening session will be held Thursday, April 11, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. This session is open to the public but requires RSVP to
The session will be held virtually, with online and dial-in information shared with registered participants.
The Stakeholder Listening Session is designed to seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts to help inform U.S. Government engagement with the WGIHR and INB.
Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed in 2022 to embark on a process to amend the current IHR. The process builds on lessons learned from the various review panels that examined the functioning of the IHR and the global health security architecture during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Working Group on the Amendments to the IHR (WGIHR) is considering more than 300 proposed amendments to 33 of the 66 articles of the IHR and 5 of its 9 annexes, plus 6 new articles and 2 new annexes. More information on the WGIHR can be found here:
The WGIHR currently intends to submit its outcome to the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in May 2024.
The INB currently intends to submit its outcome to the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in May 2024.
The United States has expressed support for the development of an international instrument to protect the world from pandemic health threats now and in the future, and in a more rapid and equitable manner.
The United States is seeking the following key outcomes in the negotiations:
• Enhance the capacity of countries around the world to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemic emergencies and provide clear, credible, consistent information to their citizens.
• Ensure that all countries share data and laboratory samples from emerging outbreaks quickly, safely, and transparently to facilitate response efforts and inform public health decision making regarding effective disease control measures, including the rapid creation of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments.
• Support more equitable and timely access to, and delivery of, vaccines, diagnostic tests, treatments, and other mitigation measures to quickly contain outbreaks, reduce illness and death, and minimize impacts on the economic and national security of people around the world.
Participation is welcome from stakeholder communities, including:
Requests to participate as a speaker must include all of the following information:
1. The name and email address of the person desiring to participate
2. The organization(s) that person represents, if any
3. The document(s) and primary article(s) of interest, listed in order of the speaker's priorities
We look forward to your comments on these matters.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Wade Green at (301) 761-7505 or
Technology description follows:
An Innovative Adapter for Expedited and Automated Thawing of viably Frozen Cells.
This technology is a device and system for expediting the thawing frozen specimens (
The automated mechanism ensures a precise and controlled thawing environment maintaining optimal temperature conditions throughout the thawing process.
• This device can be used in sample preparation and cell culturing.
• Applicable for research materials, medical and non-medical devices and consumer products.
• Provides a faster process of recovering viable cells from frozen specimens.
• Eliminates multi-step processes.
• High throughput system with reduced variability.
• Constant environment control.
• Prototype
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, PAR-22-102 and PAR-22-103: Investigational New Drug (IND)—enabling and Early-Stage Development of Medications to Treat Alcohol Use Disorder and Alcohol-Associated Organ Damage March 21, 2024, 01:00 p.m. to March 21, 2024, 04:00 p.m., National Institute of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the Meeting Format from a Regular Meeting to a Virtual Meeting. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.
The meeting will be open to the public as a virtual meeting. 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 member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meetings. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their 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:
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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than April 29, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0123 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP officers enforce recorded trademarks, trade names and copyrights at all U.S. Ports of Entry. The
E-Recordation applicants may provide as much additional information as they would like that would aid CBP in authenticating their genuine merchandise and distinguishing it from non-genuine merchandise, such as a Product Identification or Authentication Guides, lists of licensees and authorized manufacturers, and Applicants can supplement their application with additional information at any time by emailing the e-Recordation team at
On December 15, 2017, CBP published a final rule in the
The donation offer must describe the proposed donation in sufficient detail to enable CBP to determine its compatibility with existing CBP technologies, networks, and facilities (
The respondents to this information collection are members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP regulations.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information necessary to allow FEMA to support the needs of States, federally-recognized Tribes, and Territories during disaster situations through the use of other Federal Agency resources.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 29, 2024.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit comments at
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used to submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Courtney Keller, Emergency Management Specialist, Mission Assignment Program, by telephone at (202) 441-3642 or by email at
According to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121,
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
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 March 29, 2024.
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
This notice seeks comment on the USCIS Form I-134A, Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support, information collection package, which DHS uses in connection with certain parole processes. In January 2023, at DHS's request, the Office of Management and Budget approved this new collection in accordance with emergency procedures set forth at 5 CFR 1320.13. DHS uses this collection to implement processes through which nationals of certain countries and their immediate family members may request to come to the United States in a safe and orderly way. The collection is an outgrowth of Form I-134 (OMB Control Number 1615-0014), and has been used in connection with Uniting for Ukraine; the parole processes for certain Cubans,
Under these processes, certain beneficiaries who are outside the United States and lack U.S. entry documents may be considered, on a case-by-case basis, for advance authorization to travel and a temporary period of parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. To participate, eligible beneficiaries must:
• Have a confirmed supporter in the United States;
• Undergo and clear robust security vetting;
• Demonstrate that a grant of parole is warranted based on urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit;
• Meet other eligibility criteria; and
• Demonstrate that they warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
Beneficiaries participating in these processes must have a supporter in the United States who agrees to provide them with financial support for the duration of their parole in the United States. Potential supporters file a Form I-134A for each potential beneficiary, including, if applicable, immediate family members of the principal beneficiary, with USCIS through the USCIS online web portal to initiate the parole process. Form I-134A identifies and collects information on both the supporter and the beneficiary. The potential supporter must submit evidence establishing their income and assets and commit to provide financial support to the beneficiary for the duration of parole. A potential supporter filing Form I-134A under a family reunification parole process is also required to submit evidence establishing the family relationships between the principal beneficiary and all derivative beneficiaries. No fee is required to file Form I-134A.
USCIS will perform background checks on the potential supporter and verify their financial information to ensure that the potential supporter is able to financially support the beneficiary. If the potential supporter's Form I-134A is confirmed, the beneficiary named in the Form I-134A will receive an email from USCIS with instructions to create a USCIS online account and next steps for completing the request. See Advance Travel Authorization (ATA) (OMB Control Number 1651-0143) for the approved collection of information for the next steps in relevant parole processes.
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)
Form I-134A is filed by a U.S.-based individual (the potential supporter) to request to be a supporter, agree to provide financial support to the beneficiary named on the form during the beneficiary's period of stay in the United States, and to provide information concerning why the beneficiary warrants a discretionary grant of parole.
(5)
(6)
(7)
The Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be submitted within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Glenn Schroeder, Program Analyst, OEE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Average hours per response varies substantially depending on level of review. Reviews that are exempt or Categorically Excluded Not Subject To the related laws and authorities (CENST) take roughly 45 minutes to complete. Reviews that are Categorically Excluded Subject To the related laws (CEST) or require an Environmental Assessment (EA) take an average of 4 hours to complete. Some CEST reviews “convert to exempt,” and require roughly 2 hours to complete.
HUD grants cover all eligible costs including staff work. Hourly cost per response based on hourly mean wage of urban planners working for local government (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice.
HUD, in collaboration with other organizations, will present the Innovative Housing Showcase in June 2024 on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The Innovative Housing Showcase (Showcase) is a public event to raise awareness of innovative housing designs and technologies that have the potential to increase housing supply, lower the cost of construction, and/or reduce housing expenses for owners and renters. HUD is especially interested in innovative housing designs and technologies that, in addition to reducing costs and expenses for builders, owners and renters, can expand quality, affordable, accessible and healthy housing options for low- and moderate-income households; support aging in place; improve climate mitigation and resilience and disaster recovery; and/or increase energy efficiency and support decarbonization in the housing sector. HUD is seeking exhibitors to showcase innovations, and this notice solicits proposals for the Innovative Housing Showcase, with a preference for full-scale housing models and technology demonstrations that the public can tour and interact with.
All proposals must be received no later than March 29, 2024. Proposals will be accepted and reviewed on a rolling basis until March 29, 2024, or until HUD reaches capacity for exhibitor space on the National Mall, whichever comes sooner. HUD encourages early submission of proposals.
Proposals must be in writing and submitted via email to
Michael Blanford, Research Engineer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 451 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-5728 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech and communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit:
This year will be the fourth time HUD has hosted the Showcase on the National Mall, having done so in 2019, 2022, and 2023. Prior Showcases were attended by several thousand members of the public, as well as housing practitioners and government leaders, and received coverage in both popular media and trade press. Given HUD's mission to create “quality, affordable homes for all,” this event offers a unique opportunity to highlight innovative housing designs and technologies that can improve quality and deepen affordability for leaders in the housing sector, from policymakers and planners to funders, architects, and builders.
The National Mall is a landscaped park that is always open to the public, which brings certain expectations when presenting housing innovations on a large scale. Exhibitors are responsible for complying with all National Park Service (NPS) rules and regulations as identified in the NPS Event Planning Guide (
Approach to the National Mall involves DC streets or interstate highways, local and federal restrictions pertaining to weight, and compliance with width of load and height restrictions. There are two primary DC routes approaching the National Mall that can accommodate 13′6″ clearance. The Showcase Management team will advance the arrival and departure routes as well as the set-up and tear-down schedule to each exhibitor.
Showcase management is overseen by HUD and HUD-designated entities responsible for Showcase planning and event logistics. The Innovative Housing Showcase host exhibits in three primary categories:
Each exhibit shall be positioned and equipped to allow persons who have mobility restrictions to approach the threshold of an enterable exhibit. The Showcase Management team will provide a list of contractors that are prepared to provide ADA compliant ramps for Enterable exhibits.
The Showcase Management team will review the public-facing branding of each exhibit and can provide advice and
Exhibits must be presented in a manner that can sustain a 30-mph wind and should not exceed 45′ in height. HUD will make available the use of a crane or forklifts for installation. Typically, the crane provided has a 20-ton capacity and will be apportioned to accommodate the needs of all exhibitors. Exhibits that exceed 400 sq ft will require the NPS review of floor plans and engineering to establish an occupancy load as well as any ballast that may be required to satisfy the wind load guidelines.
Exhibits will be delivered by truck and placed on the gravel walkways of the National Mall. To maintain adequate pathways for the public to traverse between monuments and museums adjacent to the event site, exhibit areas are apportioned based on individual footprints. Exhibits including outdoor space and handicap accessibility shall not exceed 30′ in depth and are generally 60′ to 80′ in width.
For each exhibit type, HUD provides a standard tent with side walls, tables, and chairs as well as a sign identifying the Exhibitor. The sign includes the exhibitor's brand and features the event brand consistent with the NPS guidelines. The Showcase Management team will also provide electricity for each exhibit whether Tabletop, On-Ground or Enterable.
Exhibitors are responsible for their own expenses, personnel, and resources. Exhibitors will bear the cost to manufacture the exhibit, deliver and remove the exhibit from the Showcase Site, and staff the exhibit during the run of show. HUD will not provide any funding to exhibitors. HUD will provide support to manage the event.
HUD seeks housing designs and technologies that have the potential to increase supply and lower the cost of construction, and/or reduce housing expenses for owners and renters. This could include designs that reduce building footprints, like Accessory Dwelling Units and multi-unit manufactured and modular housing, or that impact on-site construction efficiency, like three-dimensional (3D) printing and panelization. HUD is especially interested in innovative housing designs and technologies that, in addition to reducing costs and expenses for builders, owners and renters, can expand quality, affordable, accessible and healthy housing options for low- and moderate-income households; support aging in place; improve climate mitigation and resilience and disaster recovery; and/or increase energy efficiency and support decarbonization in the housing sector. Potential exhibits could range from tabletop displays to on-ground exhibits to enterable homes.
Interested potential exhibitors should submit via the methods discussed previously in this notice and include responses to the following:
1. Exhibitor name.
2. Exhibit category: tabletop display, on-ground exhibit, or enterable.
3. A short narrative description of the exhibit including attributes that make it appropriate for the Showcase, specifically how the product advances the goals listed above.
a. If proposing an enterable exhibit, a short narrative description of any accessibility features.
4. A photo or rendering of your exhibit, including links to websites and videos (if available).
5. Description of the installation process on the Mall, including essential specifications.
6. Transportation requirements, including need for special road clearances for oversize/overweight loads.
7. Description of previous exhibits or demonstrations of the product (this could include home shows and other exhibits).
8. Any other substantial partners involved in the proposed exhibit.
9. Contact information for the exhibitor (with the authority to commit).
Responses should be limited to 1-2 pages.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection described above to collect proposals for the Showcase has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2528-0346.
HUD will select exhibit proposals that align with the above themes and areas of focus, particularly housing affordability, quality, accessibility, decarbonization and resilience, as well as other considerations such as novelty and overall composition of submitted responses. For the sake of visitor engagement, we will prioritize exhibits that can be displayed in person and that are enterable or are otherwise feature visually interesting and interactive presentations. Other factors that may impact exhibitor selection include National Mall site limitations and potential expense to HUD (
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee Public Meeting.
This gives notice of a Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) meeting and sets forth the proposed agenda. The HCFAC meeting will be held on Thursday, March 21, 2024. The meeting is open to the public and is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The hybrid meeting (virtual and in-person meeting) will be held on Thursday, March 21, 2024, starting at 9:00 a.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST).
Virginia F. Holman, Housing Program Technical Specialist, Office of Housing Counseling, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; telephone number 540-894-7790 (this is not a toll-free number); email
HUD is convening a hybrid meeting (virtual and in-person meeting) of the HCFAC on Thursday, March 21, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST). The virtual meeting will be held via ZOOM. The in-person meeting will be held at the Alamo Community
The public is invited to attend this 6-hour hybrid meeting (virtual and in-person meeting) using ZOOM for the virtual meeting. Advance registration is required to attend. To register, please visit
The public will have an opportunity to give written and oral comments relative to agenda topics for the HCFAC's consideration. Written comments can be provided on the registration form or by emailing
Oral comments may be provided during the meeting. Comments from the public will be received at the end of the meeting to ensure all agenda items can be completed. Each person providing oral comments will be allocated two minutes. This time will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis by HUD. The meeting registration confirmation will contain additional instructions for providing oral comments, virtually or in-person. The HCFAC will not respond to individual written or oral statements during the meeting but will take all public comments into account in its deliberations.
Records and documents discussed during the meeting, as well as other information about the work of the HCFAC, will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Information on the Committee is also available on hud.gov at
Bureau of Indians Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act provide that Federally recognized Indian Tribes may designate an agent other than the Tribal chairman for service of notice of proceedings under the Act. This notice includes the current list of designated Tribal agents for service of notice.
The notice is effective February 28, 2024 and supersedes the list published on March 22, 2023.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Evangeline M. Campbell, Chief, Division of Human Services, Office of Indian Services, 1849 C St. NW, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, Washington, DC 20240;
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901
In any involuntary proceeding in a State court where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, and where the identity and location of the child's parent or Indian custodian or Tribe is known, the party seeking the foster-care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must directly notify the parents, the Indian custodians, and the child's Tribe by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, of the pending child-custody proceedings and their right of intervention. Copies of these notices must be sent to the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Regional Director by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal delivery.
If the identity or location of the child's parents, the child's Indian custodian, or the Tribe(s) in which the Indian child is a member or eligible for membership cannot be ascertained, but there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, notice of the child-custody proceeding must be sent to the appropriate BIA Regional Director, available at
No notices, except for final adoption decrees, are required to be sent to the BIA Central Office, MS-3645, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240.
This notice presents the names and addresses of current designated Tribal agents for service of notice and includes each designated Tribal agent received by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the date of this publication. The lists designated Tribal agents by BIA Region and alphabetically by Tribe within each BIA Region.
In addition to the BIA's annual
Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Attn: Human Services, 3601 C St., Ste. 1200, MC-403 Anchorage, Alaska 99503; Telephone: (907) 271-4111; Fax: (907) 271-4090.
Eastern Regional Director, 545 Marriot Dr., Ste. 700, Nashville, TN 37214; Telephone: (615) 546-6500; Fax: (615) 564-6701.
Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director, Atten: Human Services, P.O. Box 8002, Muskogee, OK 74402; Telephone: (918) 781-4600; Fax (918) 781-4604.
Great Plains Regional Director, Attn: Human Services, 115 4th Ave. SE, Ste. 400, Aberdeen, SD 57401; Telephone: (605) 226-7343; Fax: (605) 226-7446.
Midwest Regional Director, 5600 West American Blvd., Ste. 500, Pointe II Building, Bloomington, MN 55437; Telephone: (612) 725-4500; Fax: (612) 713-4401.
Navajo Regional Director, Navajo Regional Office, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup, NM 87305; Telephone: (505) 863-8314, Fax: (505) 863-8324.
Northwest Regional Director, 911 NE 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232; Telephone: (503) 231-6702; Fax (503) 231-2201.
Pacific Regional Director, BIA, Federal Building, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820, Sacramento, CA 95825; Telephone: (916) 978-6000; Fax: (916) 978-6055.
Rocky Mountain Regional Director, 2021 4th Ave. N, Billings, MT 59101; Telephone: (406) 247-7943; Fax: (406) 247-7976.
Southern Plains Regional Director, P.O. Box 368, Anadarko, OK 73005; Telephone: (405) 247-6673 Ext. 217; Fax (405) 247-5611.
Southwest Regional Director, 1001 Indian School Rd. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104; Telephone: (505) 563-3103; Fax: (505) 563-3101.
Western Regional Director, 2600 North Central Ave., 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, AZ 85004; Telephone: (602) 379-6600; Fax: (602) 379-4413.
This information collection is authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0186, Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings in State Court, which expires March 31, 2026.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is publishing this notice in accordance with the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation Water Rights Settlement (Settlement Act). The publication of this notice causes the settlement agreement executed in accordance with the Settlement Act to become enforceable and causes waivers and releases of claims executed pursuant to the Settlement Act to become effective.
This notice is applicable February 28, 2024.
Address all comments and requests for additional information to Sarah LeFlore, Chair, Choctaw-Chickasaw Settlement Implementation Team, Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office, 1849 C St. NW, Mail Stop 3045, Washington, DC
The Settlement Act, Public Law 114-322, was enacted to resolve certain claims to water of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Choctaw Nation) and the Chickasaw Nation as set forth in the State of Oklahoma, Choctaw Nation, Chickasaw Nation, City of Oklahoma City Water Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) and the Settlement Act, including all claims or defenses in and to
The Settlement Act and Settlement Agreement,
In accordance with section 3608(i)(1) of the Settlement Act and section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement, I find and certify as follows:
(1) To the extent the Settlement Agreement conflicts with the Settlement Act, the Settlement Agreement has been amended to conform with the Settlement Act;
(2) The Settlement Agreement, as amended, has been executed by the Secretary of the Interior, the Choctaw Nation, the Chickasaw Nation, the Governor and Attorney General of the State, the OWRB, the City, and the Trust;
(3) The Amended Storage Contract has been amended to conform with the Settlement Act;
(4) The Amended Storage Contract, as amended to conform with the Settlement Act, has been executed by the State, the City, and the Trust, and approved by the Secretary of the Army;
(5) An order has been entered in
(6) Orders of dismissal have been entered in
(7) The OWRB has issued the City Permit;
(8) The final documentation of the Kiamichi Basin hydrologic model is on file at the Oklahoma City office of the OWRB;
(9) The Atoka and Sardis Conservation Projects Fund has been funded as provided in the Settlement Agreement; and,
(10) The Chickasaw Nation, Choctaw Nation, and United States have executed the required waivers and releases of claims as required by the Settlement Act and Settlement Agreement.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Fort Lewis College has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from La Plata County and Montezuma County, CO.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Amy Cao, Fort Lewis College, 1000 Rim Drive, Durango, CO 81301, telephone (970) 247-7030, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Fort Lewis College. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by Fort Lewis College.
In 1978 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, 21 individuals were removed from site 5LP 117 (also referred to as 5LP 138), in La Plata County, CO. These were recovered during survey and salvage excavations conducted on private land in the Bodo Industrial Park south of Durango along the Animas River under the direction of Dr. Susan Riches as part of Fort Lewis College summer field school classes. The 1978 excavation was assigned site number 5LP 117 and initially, the 1979 excavations were assigned 5LP 138, however, according to documentation, Dr. Riches concluded that this was a continuation of the 5LP 117 site. Bags, labels, and other documentation may list 5LP 138, but this all refers to the 1979 summer excavations of site 5LP 117. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on the artifactual evidence, this site is designated as Ancestral Pueblo from the Pueblo I period (A.D. 700-840) (Charles, MC, 1996. “The Emergency Excavations of Three Human Burials in Bodo Industrial Ranches, La Plata County, CO”).
Between 1984 and 1997, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from site 5MT 4802 (the Pigg site), in Montezuma County, CO, under the direction of Jim Judge as part of Fort Lewis College field school classes. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on architectural and artifactual evidence, this site is designated as Ancestral Pueblo from the Pueblo II/III period (A.D. 1150-1250).
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, Fort Lewis College has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 30 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Santo Domingo Pueblo; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Fort Lewis College must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Fort Lewis College is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Ventura, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the University of California, Riverside.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Ventura County, CA. The cranium of 1 young adult female Native American individual was discovered in a cave in Ventura County by a group of young boys participating in the “Trailfinders” camp. The cranium was housed at the University of California James San Jacinto Mountain Natural Reserve in a cabinet with other mammal crania since its founding in 1966 by Harry James who was also the founder of Trailfinders. The cabinet and its contents were reportedly given to the reserve by the Department of Biology at the University of California, Riverside (UCR). Through conversations with previous reserve directors, UCR NAGPRA Staff found that there was an oral history among individuals (now in their 80s and 90s) who participated in the Trailfinders organization about how the cranium was discovered. Former director of the James Reserve, Michael Hamilton, indicated that he was told by former Trailfinders that the cranium was found in a cave in Ventura County during a hike. Through speaking with other former members, UCR NAGPRA Staff discovered that the Trailfinders owned property on Sespe Creek in Ventura County north of Filmore where they often had weekend camping trips. They typically hiked upstream (north) on Sespe Creek because that was the only direction they could go for a hike. Living Trailfinders who have spoken with UCR NAGPRA Staff suggested that it is likely that the cranium was found in the Sespe Creek drainage in Ventura County during one such hike.
Additional post-cranial human remains representing one young adult female Native American individual were reported by the University of California, Riverside's Department of Evolution Ecology & Organismal Biology (EEOB) to the UCR NAGPRA Program. The department staff indicated that the human remains, which were stored in a cardboard box labeled “Indian Bones”, had been in the department since at least before the 1990s. Despite an exhaustive attempt to contact previous professors and department chairs, no information was found by the NAGPRA Program Staff to indicate how the human remains became part of the department's collections. The cabinet which the human remains were stored in contained the post-cranial remains of other vertebrate mammals. Examination of the human remains by an osteologist determined that there were also a few
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, biological information, geographical information, historical information, oral tradition, expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The cultural items were removed from San Luis Obispo, CA.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records held by the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
The two cultural items were removed from San Luis Obispo County, CA. In 2001, Terry Jones removed sea-snail shells for radiocarbon date calibration from archeological site CA-SLO-116 (San Simeon State Park). The site, which is under the legal control of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, consists of 19 recorded bedrock mortars and large shell midden deposits. The shell samples submitted to the UCR radiocarbon laboratory dated to 665 ± BP, 785 ± BP, and 3910 ± BP. There are no known associated collections from this site held by CDPR at other locations.
In 1981, R.O. Gibson removed shell fragments for radiocarbon date sampling from archeological site CA-SLO-978, Morro Bay Sandspit. The site, located in Montana de Oro State Park Los Osos, was originally recorded in 1969 as a shell mound or midden. Other noted cultural constituents included debitage, fire-affected, and additional nearby shell middens. There are no known associated collections from this site held by CDPR at other locations. The two lots of objects of cultural patrimony are two lots of shells.
The cultural items in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: tribal traditional knowledge, archeological information, geographical information, historical information, kinship, oral tradition, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation has determined that:
• The two lots of cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Kings County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
At some time before 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Tulare Lake Witt Site locale in Kings County, CA, by a private individual. The human remains were donated to the California Department of Parks and Recreation by the private individual and subsequently submitted to the University of California, Riverside Radiocarbon Laboratory for Uranium-series method dating tests. The collection was subsequently held in the UCR Radiocarbon Laboratory under the direction of Dr. R. Ervin Taylor. When he retired in 2003, the lab was decommissioned and its records and remaining sample materials were subsequently stored by Dr. Taylor in an off-campus storage facility, which he did not report to the campus Repatriation Coordinator at the time. The residual sample materials were rediscovered by UCR NAGPRA Program Staff during a collections inventory in February of 2021. At the time no documentation indicating who the individual was or where they were removed from was found and it was not until September of 2022, that UCR NAGPRA Staff were able to find publications that described human remains removed from the site and data-sample sheets produced by the laboratory that were consistent with this individual. It was also discovered in 2023 that the larger skeletal elements from which the samples were removed were present at California State University, Bakersfield since at least 2017 when Dr. Robert Bettinger (UCR Alumnus) likely transferred them from the University of California, Davis without the knowledge of the Tribe or any NAGPRA Program to Dr. Robert Yohe III at CSUB. The human remains are approximately 44 mineralized bone fragments/elements representing at least one cranium and at least one femur. No known individuals were determined to be represented by the human remains. Uranium-series method dates suggest a date between 11,390 ± 70 and 15,800 ± 380 BP. The three associated funerary objects are one lot of lithic/stone objects, one lot of soil samples, and one lot of faunal remains.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside and the California Department of Parks and Recreation are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Sacramento and California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Sacramento County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Dr. Mark Wheeler, Chief of Staff to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Sacramento and Caltrans. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by California State University, Sacramento and Caltrans.
In 1954-1956, 1967 and 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, 486 individuals were removed from CA-SAC-29 (also known as Roeder Mound and
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, California State University, Sacramento and Caltrans has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 486 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 643,304 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Sacramento and Caltrans must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. California State University, Sacramento and Caltrans are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Sacramento intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes in this notice. The cultural items were removed from Sacramento County, CA.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Dr. Mark Wheeler, Chief of Staff to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Sacramento. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records held by California State University, Sacramento.
At an unknown date, five cultural objects were removed from CA-SAC-17 (also known as the Smith site) in Sacramento County by unknown individuals. The five objects of cultural patrimony consist of flaked stones and faunal remains. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
In 1980, two cultural objects were removed from CA-SAC-57 (also know as Barry #1 site) in Sacramento County by Sacramento State students under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson. The two objects of cultural patrimony are flaked stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
In 1980, 10 cultural objects were removed from CA-SAC-224 in Sacramento County during a survey by Derr and Spector. The 10 objects of cultural patrimony consist of flaked stones and faunal remains. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
At an unknown date, five cultural objects were removed from CA-SAC-234 (also known as Deer Creek 3) in Sacramento County, possibly by Louis Payen. The five objects of cultural patrimony include flaked stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
At an unknown date, 15 cultural objects were removed from CA-SAC-250 (also known as Babies' Britches) in Sacramento County by unknown individuals. The 15 objects of cultural patrimony consist of flaked stones and faunal remains. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
During the 1960s and 1970s, California State University, Sacramento students surveyed and investigated sites along Dry Creek in Sacramento County (CA-SAC-217, CA-SAC-243, CA-SAC-277, CA-SAC-278, CA-SAC-279, and CA-SAC-280). As a result, 37 cultural
In 1973, one cultural object was removed from CA-SAC-315 in Sacramento County by Ann Peak. The single object of cultural patrimony is a groundstone. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
In the 1970s, 11 cultural objects were removed from CA-SAC-320 (also known as the Sunrise Bridge site) in Sacramento County likely by Ann Peak. The 11 objects of cultural patrimony include baked clay objects and flaked and ground stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
At an unknown date, 91 cultural objects were removed from CA-SAC-370 (also known as the Old Windmiller Quarry site) in Sacramento County by unknown individuals. The 91 unassociated funerary objects consist of flaked stones and unmodified stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
At an unknown date, 15 cultural objects were collected from CA-SAC-390 in Sacramento County by unknown individuals. The 15 objects of cultural patrimony consist of flaked and ground stones; unmodified stones; and thermally-altered rocks. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
In 1974, 22 cultural objects were collected form CA-SAC-Cosumnes Plowed Site #1 in Sacramento County by Sacramento State students conducting a survey under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson. The 22 objects of cultural patrimony consist of flaked and ground stones; unmodified stones; and thermally altered rocks. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
At an unknown date, 142 cultural objects were collected from CA-Sac-Cameron Ranch in Sacramento County by unknown individuals. The collection was transferred to Sacramento State in 1977 from American River Junior College. The 142 objects of cultural patrimony consist of flaked and ground stones; modified stones; faunal remains; thermally altered rocks; unmodified stone; and historic materials. Of this number, at least 23 objects are currently missing, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
At an unknown date, one cultural object was removed from CA-SAC-Bottimore Ranch in Sacramento County by unknown individuals. The single object of cultural patrimony is a groundstone.
At an unknown date, one cultural object was removed from an unknown site in Sacramento County by unknown individuals. The single object of cultural patrimony is modified stone.
In 1971, 13 cultural objects were removed from an unknown site in Sacramento County by John Beck during levee maintenance. The 13 unassociated funerary objects include flaked stones; faunal remains; and modified shells. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
In 1971, one cultural object was removed from an unknown site in Sacramento County during a survey by Sacramento State students under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson. The single object of cultural patrimony is a groundstone. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
The cultural items in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archeological, geographical, historical, kinship, linguistic, oral traditional, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The 104 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• The 268 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Sacramento County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Dr. Mark Wheeler, Chief of Staff to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Sacramento. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by California State University, Sacramento.
Associated funerary objects were removed from CA-SAC-39 (also known as the Woodlake Site) in Sacramento County, CA, on three sperate occasions from the 1950s-1970s, possibly by Clifford Curtice, Ann Peak and others. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during the Late through Historic periods (approximately A.D. 300-post 1850) with some evidence of a possible earlier component. The 13 associated funerary objects consist of flaked and ground stones; historic materials; and modified shells. Of this number, at least one object is currently missing, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for it.
Associated funerary objects were removed from site CA-SAC-53 (also known as Wagner Mound) in Sacramento County, CA, by students in the 1970s under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson. Occupation of the site is not known, but a possible Middle Horizon (approximately 1000 B.C.-300 A.D.) component has been suggested. The 20 associated funerary objects consist of flaked stones and historic materials. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Associated funerary objects were removed from site CA-SAC-54 in Sacramento County, CA, at an unknown date by unknown individuals. Occupation of the site is not known. The 21 associated funerary objects consist of flaked and ground stones; faunal remains; historic materials; and unmodified stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 56 individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-67 (also known as the Denier Site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through excavations conducted in the 1970s-1980s by students from Sacramento State, UC Davis, and Cosumnes River College under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson. Occupation of the site is estimated to have primarily occurred from approximately 3500 BP to 150 BP. The 92,957 associated funerary objects consist of archeological materials, baked clay, faunal remains, flaked stone, floral remains, groundstone, historic materials, modified bone, modified shell, modified stone, thermally altered rocks, unmodified stone, unbaked clay, geologic samples, soil samples, plaster casts/impressions, manuports, ash, unidentified objects, pigment, charcoal, basketry fragments, and one lot of uncatalogued materials. At least 126 objects are currently missing, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Associated funerary objects were removed from site CA-SAC-116 (also known as Muddox Mound) in Sacramento County, CA, likely in the 1950s by unknown individuals associated with the University. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during the Late Horizon through Historic Period (approximately A.D. 300-post 1850). The 29 associated funerary objects consist of flaked stones; historic materials; and modified shells and stones. Of this number, at least 22 objects are currently missing, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 43 individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-117 (also known as Woodward Mound) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through excavations conducted in the 1950s by Sacramento State students under the direction of Dr. Richard Reeves. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during the Middle and Late Periods (approximately 500 B.C.-A.D. 1500). The 286 associated funerary objects consist of baked clay objects; faunal remains; flaked stones; modified bones, shells and stones; unmodified stones; thermally altered rocks; and quartz crystals. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-125 (also known as the Horst Site), CA-SAC-129, CA-SAC-133 (also known as Aufdermaur #1), CA-SAC-134 (also known as Mahon #1), CA-SAC-135 (also known as Audisio), CA-SAC-136, and CA-SAC-147 in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a survey conducted in 1974 by Sacramento State students under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson. Occupation of the sites varies. The 27 associated funerary objects consist of flaked and ground stones; faunal remains; historic materials; modified bones and stones; unmodified stones; ash; and fired earth. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collections, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-164 (also known as Sand Cove) in Sacramento County, CA in the 1980s by Sacramento State students and from other unknown origins. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during the Middle Horizon through Historic Period (approximately 1000 B.C.-post A.D. 1850). The 1,217 associated funerary objects consist of baked clay objects; faunal and floral remains; historic materials; flaked and ground stones;
Associated funerary objects from site CA-SAC-168 in Sacramento County, CA, were donated to the University in 1956 from the University of Californian, Berkeley. A Late Horizon (A.D. 300-post 1850) occupation is documented for the site. The two associated funerary objects are charmstones.
Associated funerary objects were removed from site CA-SAC-185 in Sacramento County, CA, by an unknown individual. It is not known how they came into the University's possession. The date range of occupation of the site is not known. The five associated funerary objects consist of flaked stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-194 (also known as Van Vleck Mound) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through various surveys conducted in the 1960s by Sacramento State field classes and a possible excavation in the 1950s by Clifford Curtis. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during the Late Horizon through Historic Period (approximately A.D. 300-post 1850). The 705 associated funerary objects consist of flaked stones; faunal and floral remains; historic materials; modified bones, shells and stones; and soil samples. Of this number, at least three objects are currently missing, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-SAC-202 (also known as the Mooney site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a 1954 excavation under the direction of Brigham Arnold. The date range of occupation of the site is not known. The 297 associated funerary objects consist of baked clay objects; faunal remains; flaked and ground stones; historic materials; modified shells, bones, and stones; unmodified stones; and quartz crystals. Of this number, at least 263 objects and the human remains are currently missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-203 (also known as the Mathena Mound) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a 1946 excavation. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during at least the Late Horizon. The 27 associated funerary objects consist of flaked stones; modified bones and shells; and unmodified stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-205 in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through 1971 and 1973 excavations under the direction of Ann Peak. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during at least the Late Horizon. The 174 associated funerary objects consist of faunal and floral remains; flaked and ground stones; historic materials; modified bones, stones, and shells; thermally altered rocks; and unmodified stones. Of this number, at least one object is currently missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for it.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-208 (also known as the Harris site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a 1956/1957 visit to the site by Richard Reeve, Brigham Arnold and Norman Wilson. The date range of occupation of the site is not known. The 30 associated funerary objects consist of baked clay objects; faunal remains; and historic materials. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-SAC-221 (also known as the Rouse site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a 1956 survey conducted by Norman Wilson. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during at least the Historic Period. The five associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: faunal remains; flaked stones; thermally altered rocks; modified shell; and uncatalogued material.
Human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-225 (also known as the Loughridge site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through excavations carried out from 1961-1969 by Sacramento State field classes under the direction of William Beeson. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred from the Middle Horizon through Historic period (approximately 1000 B.C.-post A.D. 1850). The 13 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: faunal remains; floral remains; flaked stones; groundstones; historic materials; thermally altered rocks; modified bones; modified stones; modified shells; pigment; unmodified stones; quartz; and uncatalogued materials.
Associated funerary objects were removed from site CA-SAC-230 in Sacramento County, CA, in 1964 by William Beeson and Jerald Johnson, and in 1974 during a student survey. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during the Late Horizon through Historic Period (approximately A.D. 300-post 1850). The 46 associated funerary objects consist of faunal remains; flaked stones; historic materials; and modified shells. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-SAC-237 (also known as the Chatterson site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a 1964 excavation under the direction of Patti Palumbo. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during approximately 2,500 to 1,500 BP with an additional historic period component. The 417 associated funerary objects consist of faunal and floral remains; flaked and ground stones; historic materials; modified bones and stones; quartz crystals; and unmodified stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-SAC-239 (also known as the Scott site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and
Associated funerary objects were removed from site CA-SAC-241 in Sacramento County, CA. These associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a 1964 survey by John Mott and Patti Palumbo. The date range of occupation of the site is not known. The eight associated funerary objects consist of flaked and ground stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-265 (also known as the Whaley site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through excavations in 1975 and 1982 under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson and Donna Sheeders. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred from the Early Horizon through Historic Period (approximately 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1934). The 2,028 associated funerary objects consist of baked clay objects; faunal and floral remains; flaked and ground stones; historic materials; modified bones and stones; pigments; and unmodified stones. Of this number, at least 24 objects are currently missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 51 individuals were removed from site CA-SAC-267 (also known as the Blodgett site) in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through excavations carried out from 1969-1973 by Sacramento State and UC Davis under the direction of Dr. Jerald Johnson and Eric Ritter. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred from A.D. 500-1840. The 19 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: baked clay objects; faunal remains; floral remains; flaked stones; groundstones; historic materials; thermally altered rocks; modified bones; modified stones; modified shells; pigment; unmodified stones; thermally-altered rocks; quartz; geologic samples; soil samples; ash; unidentified objects; and uncatalogued materials.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-SAC-285 in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through a 1972 survey by Kent Smith and Ann Peak. The date range of occupation of the site is not known. The 288 associated funerary objects consist of faunal remains; flaked and ground stones; modified stones; thermally altered rocks; quartz crystals; and unmodified stones. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Associated funerary objects were removed from site CA-SAC-476/H (also known as the Mucke site) in Sacramento County, CA. The origin of the collection is not known, but it was likely generated by Charles Gebhardt in the 1950s. The date range of occupation of the site is not known. The four associated funerary objects consist of modified shells. An unknown number of objects may be missing from the collection, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-SAC-Cabin Site in Sacramento County, CA. These human remains and associated funerary objects came into the University's possession through an excavation conducted in 1967 under the direction of William Beeson. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred during the Middle Horizon through Historic Period approximately 1000 B.C.-post A.D. 1850). The 1,429 associated funerary objects consist of flaked and ground stones; faunal remains; historic materials; modified bones and stones; pigments; and unmodified stones. Of this number, at least three objects are currently missing, and California State University, Sacramento continues to look for them.
Human remains representing, at minimum three individuals were removed from CA-SAC-Horst Ranch in Sacramento County, CA. The origin of the collection is not known nor is a date range for occupation of the site. The three associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: faunal remains; flaked stones; and uncatalogued materials.
Human remains representing, at minimum one individual were removed from an unknown site in Sacramento County, CA, likely near Rancho Cordova. The collection was likely donated to the University in the 1980s by unidentified park rangers. The four associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: faunal remains; modified shells; floral remains; and uncatalogued materials.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in Sacramento County, CA, during the construction of a residence hall on the Sacramento State campus in 1958. The three associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: faunal remains; soil samples; and uncatalogued materials.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archeological, folkloric, geographical, historical, kinship, linguistic, oral traditional, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes, California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 194 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 100,318 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from an unknown county in CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the University of California, Riverside.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown County in CA. The V. Basinger Collection is believed to have been donated to the University of California, Riverside in the 1960s. The collection is approximately 28 banker's boxes in size and contains about 600 items. The cremated remains of at least one Native American ancestor are housed in six clay vessels in the collection. In his 2002 NAGPRA inventory, Dr. Phil Wilke of the UCR Anthropology Department, noted that the collection had been in the department since at least 1969. Through archival research, NAGPRA Staff uncovered information related to a professor of entomology, Dr. Almon Jay Basinger, who taught at UCR from 1923-196. Dr. Basinger was married to Vera Basinger (Lewis) who passed away in 1950. According to historical census data, Vera Basinger lived in Pima County, AZ, in her early life on her family's farm. NAGPRA Program Staff believe that the V. Basinger Collection was composed mostly of Vera's personal collection and was donated by Dr. Almon Basinger to UCR after her death. Collection records list Arizona (Gila Bend, Rillito, Chiricahua Mountains) and Riverside, California for small a portion of the collection, while the rest is broadly un-provenienced. In a student paper likely from the 1970s, a student conducted an osteological analysis of the cremated remains yielding information about the possible method of cremation and noting that the individual was a young, Native American man from the “Southern California desert”. The only documentation associated with the collection was a singular black and white photograph of four people washing pottery at what appears to be an archeological site. Writing on the reverse of the photograph appears to read “Washing pottery at Puyé, 1916 New Mexico”. The items in the collection seem to be from different locales in the American Southwest and Southern California and are not all from the burial site where the cremation was reportedly removed from. The burial site was likely in either Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, or San Bernardino Counties. Through consultation and review of the funerary objects with various southern California/Arizona Tribes it was determined that the individual was most likely either Cahuilla or Yaqui. The six associated funerary objects are six clay vessels (ollas).
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical information, historical information, and expert tribal opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The six objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California; Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Filson Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Clark County, IN.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Kelly Hyberger, The Filson Historical Society, 1310 South 3rd Street, Louisville, KY 40208, telephone (502) 635-5083, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Filson Historical Society. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Filson Historical Society.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Clark County, IN. This individual was likely removed from a mound on the bank of the Ohio River in Clarksville sometime in 1895. Archival evidence suggests this mound was later destroyed during construction of a flood wall. This individual was donated to the Filson in 1913 by the estate of Ruben T. Durrett. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical information and oral tradition.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Filson Historical Society has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Shawnee Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Filson Historical Society must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Filson Historical Society is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM Alaska) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from near Wainwright in the North Slope Borough, Alaska.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Miriam (Nicole) Hayes, Bureau of Land Management, 222 W 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK 99513, telephone (907) 271-4354, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of BLM Alaska. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by BLM Alaska.
In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Siraagruk archeological site (WAI-095), about 17 miles northeast of Wainwright, AK. The human remains, which are estimated to be over 120 years old, were excavated by an archeological crew working under authority of the BLM. The human remains were shipped to the University of Wisconsin in Madison, where they remained until moved to Anchorage, AK. In 2023, they were transferred to the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks, AK, where they are currently held. The identity of the individual is unknown. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological information and oral tradition.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, BLM Alaska has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Village of Wainwright.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, BLM Alaska must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. BLM Alaska is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the State University of New York Potsdam (SUNY Potsdam), Department of Anthropology, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from St. Lawrence County, NY.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Hadley Kruczek-Aaron, SUNY Potsdam, Department of Anthropology, 44 Pierrepont Avenue,
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the SUNY Potsdam, Department of Anthropology. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the SUNY Potsdam, Department of Anthropology.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from St. Lawrence County, NY. In the summer of 1979, SUNY Potsdam archeologist Garrett Cook conducted an archeology field school at the so-called Lee site, which has been dated to the Early and Middle Woodland periods. The excavation took place largely in what had become a highly disturbed plow zone. During the excavation, no intact burial was discerned and, owing to their highly fragmentary condition, human bones were not differentiated from animal bones. Nevertheless, Cook suspected that burials lay nearby and, as a result, he ceased the excavation. The excavated assemblage from the Lee site became part of the SUNY Potsdam archeological collections. After realizing that there were human remains and associated funerary objects in this assemblage, in the spring of 2022, current SUNY Potsdam archeologists initiated the NAGPRA inventory process. The 42 associated funerary objects are one popeyed birdstone, three Meadowood cache blades, three Meadowood bifaces, two chert bifaces (one of them glued), one triangular chert biface, one medial chert biface, four proximal biface fragments, one partial groundstone axe (partially glued), one drill fragment, one quartz projectile point, one possible Meadowood projectile point, one distal biface fragment (possibly Meadowood), one proximal biface fragment (possibly Meadowood), six small projectile points (mostly chert), one ovate projectile point, eight scrapers, one soapstone bead, one bone pottery decorating tool, one antler tine, one lot consisting of miscellaneous lithics (mostly debitage; N = 2,739), one lot consisting of ceramic sherds (some glued; N = 1,499 fragments), and one lot consisting of faunal remains (N = 655 fragments).
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical and oral traditional.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the SUNY Potsdam, Department of Anthropology has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The 42 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Oneida Indian Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the SUNY Potsdam Department of Anthropology must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The SUNY Potsdam Department of Anthropology is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University Chico (CSU Chico) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Butte County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Dawn Rewolinski, California State University, Chico, 400 W 1st Street, Chico, CA 95929, telephone (530) 898-3090, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the
Human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Butte County, CA. Site CA-BUT-521 is located near the Coyote Campground and Loafer Creek within the Lake Oroville State Recreation Area, which is on land owned by California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) and managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). In April and May 1975. CSU Chico archeologist Richard E. Markley and his students conducted test excavations at CA-BUT-521 prior to construction for an employee housing project. In December 2023, CDWR transferred legal control of CA-BUT-521 to CSU Chico. The 1,143 associated funerary objects are 19 lots consisting of beads, 14 lots consisting of organics, two lots consisting of clay samples, 258 lots consisting of debitage, 74 lots consisting of unmodified faunal elements, 102 lots consisting of modified faunal elements, five lots consisting of flakes, 239 modified stones, five lots consisting of unmodified stone, one piece of petrified wood, 95 lots consisting of unmodified shells, 76 lots consisting of soil samples, seven lots consisting of charcoal samples, four oversized stone tools, and 242 lots consisting of projectile points.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, oral tradition, and expert opinion in the form of Tribal traditional knowledge.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, CSU Chico has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 1,143 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, CSU Chico must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. CSU Chico is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside (UCR) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Riverside, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the University of California, Riverside.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Riverside County, CA. In 1987, the University of California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit removed the remains of at least two Native American individuals from the Lakeview (Dead Dog) sites in the Lakeview Mountains, west of the city of
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Riverside County, CA. In 1938, the human remains of one Native American adult individual were removed from the private property of the Pedrorena de Wolfskill family by Harley S. Garbani, an amateur fossil hunter and collector. The property that the individual was removed from is now owned by the Rancho Del Sol Golf Club in Moreno Valley. Documentation of the excavation and circumstances surrounding Garbani's acquisition of the human remains are extremely limited and professional publications provide little to no additional narrative. In 1981, Dr. R.E. Taylor, director of the University of California, Riverside Radiocarbon Laboratory, obtained a sample of the individual for radiocarbon dating. The residual sample material was subsequently stored by Dr. Taylor at an off-campus storage facility and never reported to the UCR NAGPRA Program Staff. In February of 2022, the sample from the individual was discovered by NAGPRA Program Staff during a collections inventory. Radiocarbon dates indicate an age of 3055 ± 140 BP. The one associated funerary object is one lot of soil samples.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological information, geographical information, historical information, oral tradition, expert tribal opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 21 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California; Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The cultural items were removed from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, CA.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Megan Murphy, the University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951)-827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records held by the University of California, Riverside.
The six cultural items were removed from San Luis Obispo County, CA. In 1981, R.O. Gibson removed marine shells (Tivela sp, Mytilus sp, Tegla sp, and chiton) from archeological site CA-SLO-99, a site located on the sea coast approximately 0.6 miles east of the south end of Shell Beach. The site consisted of a shell midden with at least one bedrock mortar.
In 1981, R.O. Gibson removed shell fragments from a midden feature at archeological site CA-SLO-459, the Harrigan Site, which is a well-known site for the Chumash. The site was on private property near Shell Beach owned by a Mr. Harrigan in 1969, hence the name “Harrigan Site”. There are multiple reports of burials at the site being previously disturbed by sewer workers. In 1984, Madonna Construction under contract of Pismo City disturbed a Chumash burial and sent two skeletal elements to Dr. Phil Walker at UCSB. Dr. Walker wrote back noting that the coroner should have come to the site and reported to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); the coroner reportedly refused to come. Dr. Walker urged the construction company to ask the NAHC to have the Attorney General corroborate. Walker went on to note that CA-SLO-459 is a well-known cemetery and that intentional disturbance is illegal. He cc'ed the Santa Ynez Elders Council and United Chumash Council on his response.
In 1978, R.O. Gibson removed abalone shell samples from archeological site CA-SLO-460, Fiscalini Ranch in Cambria Pine. The site was located on private property and was originally record in 1961 as a temporary camp for the gathering of seafood by Geneva Hamilton. Additional archeological surveys were conducted in the 1970s through the 1990s, which noted rock oven features, bedrock mortars, chipped stone objects, and ground stone objects.
In 1978, R.O. Gibson removed shell samples from archeological site CA-SLO-697, also known as Bob Gibson's Giant Footprint Site, in Cambria. The site reportedly consisted of a midden and oven feature with a low density of cultural deposits including net weights, pitted anvils, chert flakes, and shell fragment. Gibson hypothesized that the site actually consisted of several small sites that had blended together over time through the process of grading.
In 1981, Lawrence Spanne removed marine shells samples (Tivela stultorum) from archeological site CA-SLO-754 (trinomial later voided and changed to CA-SLO-433) in Oceano, California. The site, which was located on private property, was first recorded as a small campsite in 1954, though the property owner had noted that he had previously unintentionally disturbed a burial when plowing. In 1977 burials were disturbed during a property development project and the work was halted by local Chumash community members.
In 1981, five iron cannons washed up on Christi Beach and were thought to have been associated with Sir Francis Drake (1579). Snethcamp and Associates submitted pieces of rope found in the vicinity of the cannons to UCR for radiocarbon dating. The rope samples yielded a date of 120 ± 50 years B.P.
The six lots of objects of cultural patrimony are five lots of shells and one lot of rope fragments.
The four cultural items were removed from Santa Barbara County, CA. At an unknown date, shell samples were removed by an unknown individual from Santa Rosa Island and submitted to the University of California, Riverside Radiocarbon laboratory for testing. The samples were in jars labeled, “Abalone shells from Indian Culture—Santa Rosa Island, 3,000 years old” and “Shell Samples, Wavy Top, from Indian Culture—Santa Rosa Island, 3,000 years old”.
The skeletal remains from a fox were removed from Santa Rosa Island and were submitted by Shelley Steven to the University of California, Riverside, Radiocarbon Laboratory at an unknown date.
Burned faunal bone was removed by unknown individual from Santa Rosa Island at an unknown date and submitted to the University of California, Riverside, Radiocarbon Laboratory.
The four lots of objects of cultural patrimony are two lots of shells and two lots of faunal remains.
The cultural items in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological information, geographical information, historical information, oral tradition, and expert tribal opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The 10 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Tyndall Air Force Base (Tyndall AFB) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Bay County, FL.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after March 29, 2024.
Mr. Jose Cintron, Chief, Environmental Element, 325th CES/CEIE, Tyndall AFB, 103 Mississippi Road (Building 36233), Tyndall AFB, FL 32403, telephone (850) 283-2713, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Tyndall AFB. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by Tyndall AFB.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Bay County, FL. The human remains were presumably, based on available information and professional analysis, removed from the Davis Point Site either located either as site 8BY07 or 8BY09, on federal property by an anonymous individual prior to the construction of the Pelican Point Golf Course sometime in the 1950s—1960s. In 2022, the Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR) discovered the inventory containing the human remains which was received as a collection from the Archaeological Landscapes, Technical Assistance Service and Contracts Program based at Southeastern Archaeological Center in 2018. The three individuals range between 35 and 50+ years of age. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archaeological information, geographical information, historical information, other relevant information, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, Tyndall AFB has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains described by this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 29, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Tyndall AFB must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Tyndall AFB is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
This notice was submitted before the effective date of the revised regulations (88 FR 86452, December 13, 2023, effective January 12, 2024). As the notice conforms to the mandatory format of the
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on September 1, 2023 (88 FR 60486) and determined on December 5, 2023 that it would conduct an expedited review (89 FR 8441, February 7, 2024).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on February 23, 2024. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5496 (February 2024), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint regarding
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Nano Fire LLC and Defender Safety, LLC on February 22, 2024.
The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain aerosol fire extinguishing technology, components thereof, and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents: Halma Plc of the United Kingdom; Halma Holdings LLC of Summit, NJ; FirePro Systems, Ltd. of Cyprus; and Hochicki America Corporation of Buena Park, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondent alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3726”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Community Relations Service, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Community Relations Service, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until March 29, 2024.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Jordan Mathews, Community Relations Service, 145 N St. NE, Washington, DC 20002, 771-208-9190 or
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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before March 29, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Wilson Vadukumcherry by telephone at 202-693-0110, or by email at
The information collections under OMB Control No. 1225-0077 provides data that assists in ensuring Federal financial assistance recipients do not discriminate in the administration, management, and operation of programs and activities. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL 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 DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in
The prospective exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than March 14, 2024 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than March 14, 2024 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
NASA intends to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in: U.S. Patent No. 11,779,869 entitled “Multiplex Inertial Filter, Collector and Separator” and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/456,418 entitled “Multiplex Inertial Filter, Collector and Separator” to CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., having its principal place of business in Glenview, Illinois. The fields of use may be limited. NASA has not yet made a final determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned in part to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is inviting the general public or other Federal agencies to comment on this proposed continuing information collection. NSF will publish periodic summaries of the proposed projects.
Written comments on this notice must be received by April 29, 2024, to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
The Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program supports an integrated, interdisciplinary research environment to advance fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems; educate a globally competitive and diverse engineering workforce from K-12 on; and join academe and industry in partnership to achieve these goals. ERCs conduct world-class research through partnerships of academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities. New knowledge thus created is meaningfully linked to society.
ERCs conduct world-class research with an engineered systems perspective that integrates materials, devices, processes, components, control algorithms and/or other enabling elements to perform a well-defined function. These systems provide a unique academic research and education experience that involves integrative complexity and technological realization. The complexity of the systems perspective includes the factors associated with its use in industry, society/environment, or the human body.
ERCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, speed knowledge/technology transfer through partnerships between academe and industry, and prepare a more competitive future workforce. ERCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
Centers are required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, ERCs also are required to submit management and performance indicators annually to NSF via a data collection website that is managed by a technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of cash and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the ERC effort. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.
Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) vision and impact, (2) strategic plan, (3) research program, (4) innovation ecosystem and industrial collaboration, (5) education, (6) infrastructure (leadership, management, facilities, diversity) and (7) budget issues.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, progress toward center goals, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals and how they were overcome, plans for the future and anticipated research and other barriers to overcome in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 64, Travel Voucher.”
Submit comments by March 29, 2024. 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.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0104 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:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, 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 comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Form 64, Travel Voucher.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption in response to the March 31, 2023, request from Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPC or Maine Yankee), for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (MYAPS), located in Wiscasset, Maine. The proposed exemption from NRC regulations, if granted, would permit MYAPC to make withdrawals from a segregated account within Maine Yankee's overall nuclear decommissioning trust (NDT), on an annual basis, for spent fuel and Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC. The NRC staff is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed exemption.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on February 28, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0020 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tilda Liu, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 404-997-4730, email:
By letter dated March 31, 2023, Maine Yankee submitted a request to the NRC for an exemption from paragraphs 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) of title 10 of the
Maine Yankee has established a separate (segregated) account within its over-arching nuclear decommissioning trust (NDT), entitled “ISFSI Radiological Decom,” that identifies the funds for radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI apart from the larger balance of funds in the NDT allocated for ongoing management of spent nuclear fuel and Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste and for non-radiological site restoration activities. Although 10 CFR 50.82 applies to the segregated account, it does not apply to the overall NDT.
If granted, the exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) would permit MYAPC to make withdrawals from the segregated account, on an annual basis, for spent fuel and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC. More specifically, with this exemption, MYAPC would be able to annually transfer funds exceeding 110 percent of the inflation-adjusted decommissioning cost estimate, described in 10 CFR 50.75, from the segregated account to its overarching NDT and use those funds for spent fuel and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station began commercial operation in December 1972, and shut down in December 1996. Maine Yankee began decommissioning the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station in 1998. After ceasing reactor operations, MYAPC began transferring spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the spent fuel pool to the Maine Yankee ISFSI for long-term dry storage. MYAPC completed these activities in 2004 and completed its final decommissioning of the reactor site, except for the ISFSI, which included dismantling and removing all reactor-related facilities, in 2005. As a result, only the ISFSI remains at the old plant site of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station in Wiscasset, Maine. By letter dated September 30, 2005 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML052380223), the NRC issued Amendment No. 172 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-36 to allow MYAPC to possess and store SNF at the permanently shut down and decommissioned facility under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites.”
The NRC staff is performing both a safety evaluation and an environmental review to determine whether to grant this exemption request. The NRC staff will prepare a separate safety evaluation report (SER) to document its safety review and analysis. The NRC's SER will evaluate the proposed exemption to ensure reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, and the common defense and security. This EA documents the environmental
By letter dated March 31, 2023, Maine Yankee submitted a request to the NRC for an exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2). If granted, the proposed exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) would permit MYAPC to make withdrawals from the segregated account, on an annual basis, for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC. More specifically, with this exemption, MYAPC would be able to annually transfer funds exceeding 110 percent of the inflation-adjusted decommissioning cost estimate, described in 10 CFR 50.75, from the segregated account to its overarching NDT and use those funds for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration activities.
As required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), decommissioning trust funds may be used by the licensee if the withdrawals are for legitimate decommissioning activity expenses, consistent with the definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2. This definition addresses radiological decommissioning and does not include activities associated with management of SNF and GTCC waste or non-radiological site restoration. Similarly, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) restrict the use of decommissioning trust fund disbursements (other than for ordinary and incidental expenses) to decommissioning expenses until final decommissioning has been completed.
Maine Yankee stated that it has established a segregated account, entitled “ISFSI Radiological Decom,” within its over-arching NDT, that identifies the funds for radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI. This segregated account is separate from the larger balance of funds in the NDT allocated for ongoing management of SNF and GTCC waste and for other non-radiological site restoration activities. Therefore, exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) is needed to allow Maine Yankee to use funds from the segregated account for of SNF and GTCC waste management and other non-radiological site restoration activities.
In its Decommissioning Funding Assurance Status Report dated March 6, 2023, Maine Yankee stated that, as of December 31, 2022, its inflation-adjusted decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) for the radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI, is approximately $7.4 million in 2022 dollars, which, it asserted provides reasonable assurance of adequate funding to complete the NRC-required decommissioning activities. In the same report, Maine Yankee reported that the segregated “ISFSI Radiological Decom” account had $56.4 million. More specifically, in its exemption request, Maine Yankee provided a table showing $7,436,375 in 2022 dollars as the inflation-adjusted DCE. Maine Yankee's exemption request further stated that the segregated account has a balance of $56,449,354 as of December 31, 2022, meaning that the segregated account had a balance of $49,012,979, or 659 percent beyond the inflation-adjusted DCE.
Maine Yankee stated that, if the exemption is granted, funds in its segregated account which exceed 110 percent of the inflation-adjusted DCE for the radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI would be transferred to the overarching NDT on an annual basis without prior NRC notification. Maine Yankee would then use those funds for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration, which in turn, would allow Maine Yankee to return its additional excess funds in the overarching NDT to its customers as part of future rate cases with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) further provide that, except for withdrawals being made under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) or for payments of ordinary administrative costs and other incidental expenses of the NDT in connection with the operation of the NDT, no disbursement may be made from the NDT without written notice to the NRC at least 30 working days in advance. Therefore, an exemption from 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) is also needed to allow Maine Yankee to use funds from the segregated account for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration activities without prior NRC notification.
The proposed action involves an exemption from requirements that are of financial and/or administrative nature and that do not have an impact on the environment.
Before the NRC could approve the proposed action, it would have to conclude that there is reasonable assurance that adequate funds are available in the segregated account to complete all activities associated with radiological decommissioning as well as SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration. Therefore, there would be no decrease in safety associated with the use of funds from the segregated account to also fund activities associated with SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site-restoration.
The requested exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2), if approved, would allow transfers on an annual basis. Maine Yankee stated that it will continue to provide its annual decommissioning funding assurance status report in accordance with the 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) and (2) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(v) and (vi) requirements. These reports provide the NRC staff with awareness of, and the ability to act on, any actual or potential funding deficiencies. As the proposed exemption would not affect these requirements, the NRC staff would have tools available for any potential funding deficiencies. Since the exemption would allow Maine Yankee to use funds from the segregated account that are in excess of those required for radiological decommissioning, the adequacy of funds dedicated for radiological decommissioning would not be affected by the proposed exemption. Therefore, there is reasonable assurance that there would be no environmental impact due to lack of adequate funding for radiological decommissioning.
Further, there are no new accident precursors created by using the excess funds from the segregated account for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site-restoration. The exemption, if granted, would be financial and/or administrative in nature. Thus, the probability of postulated accidents is not increased. Also, the consequences of postulated accidents are not increased. No changes are being made in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action would have no direct impacts on land use or water resources, including terrestrial and aquatic biota, as it involves no new construction or modification of plant operational
For these reasons, the NRC concludes there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption request.
In addition to the proposed action, the NRC staff also considered denial of the proposed action (
There are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources under the proposed action.
By email dated January 16, 2024, the NRC provided a copy of this draft EA to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Radiological Control Program, for review. By email dated January 30, 2024, Maine Department of Health & Human Services concurred with the NRC staff's determination.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service regarding actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitats. The ESA is intended to prevent further decline of endangered and threatened species and restore those species and their critical habitat.
The NRC staff determined that a consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required because the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. As stated in the NHPA, historic properties are any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The NRC determined that the scope of activities described in this exemption request do not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties because the NRC's approval of this exemption request will not authorize new construction or land disturbance activities. The NRC staff also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has the potential to impact historic properties because the proposed action would occur within the established Maine Yankee site boundary. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under section 106 of NHPA.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action—an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) allowing MYAPC to make withdrawals from the segregated account, on an annual basis, for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC—have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
The proposed exemption would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring and would not have any significant radiological or non-radiological impacts. The proposed exemption involves an exemption from requirements that are of a financial and/or administrative nature and would not have an impact on the human environment. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the proposed exemption, and this FONSI incorporates by reference the EA in Section II of this document. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Generic Clearance for the
Submit comments by April 29, 2024. 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
David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0022 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 in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted 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 comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of February 2024. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the applicable file number listed below, or for an applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
The Commission:
Shawn Davis, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 13, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for public comment in the
The Commission is publishing this order pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
FINRA Rule 2210 imposes obligations related to, among other things, the approval, review, recordkeeping, filing, and content of member firm communications with the public.
The proposed rule change would create a fourth exception to the general prohibition on the communication of projected performance or targeted return information, subject to conditions designed to protect investors.
As originally proposed, the proposed rule change would permit the use of projected performance or targeted returns with respect to a security or asset allocation or other investment strategy only in (1) an institutional communication or (2) a communication that is distributed or made available only to QPs and that promotes or recommends either a “member private offering”
FINRA stated that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would limit the scope of the new exception to specified scenarios involving institutional investors, QPs, or knowledgeable employees who are more likely to understand the risks and limitations of projections or targeted returns.
The proposed rule change would require any member firm that communicates projected performance or targeted returns to Projection-Eligible Investors to “adopt[ ] and implement[ ] written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the communication is relevant to the likely financial situation and investment objectives of the investor receiving the communication and to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements and obligations.”
The proposed rule change would require any member firm that communicates projected performance or targeted returns to Projection-Eligible Investors to have “a reasonable basis for the criteria used and assumptions made in calculating the projected performance or targeted return, and retain[ ] written records supporting the basis for such criteria and assumptions.”
The proposed rule change would impose three disclosure-related requirements. First, any communication of projected performance or targeted return information to a Projection-Eligible Investor must “prominently disclose[ ] that the projected performance or targeted return is hypothetical in nature and that there is no guarantee that the projected or targeted performance will be achieved.”
Second, the proposed rule change would require any member firm communicating projected performance or targeted return information to a Projection-Eligible Investor to “provide[ ] sufficient information to enable the investor to understand . . . the criteria used and assumptions made in calculating the projected performance or targeted return, including whether the projected performance or targeted return is net of anticipated fees and expenses.”
Third, the proposed rule change would require any member firm communicating projected performance or targeted return information to a Projection-Eligible Investor to “provide[ ] sufficient information to enable the investor to understand . . . the risks and limitations of using the projected performance or targeted return in making investment decisions, including reasons why the projected performance or targeted return might differ from actual performance.”
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act to determine whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by March 20, 2024. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 3, 2024.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees and early withdrawal charges.
Coller Secondaries Private Equity Opportunities Fund and Coller Private Market Secondaries Advisors, LLC.
The application was filed on November 27, 2023, and amended on February 5, 2024.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated February 5, 2024, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
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 March 29, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Visa Office is 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.
The Department of State uses Form DS-157, Petition for Special Immigrant Classification for Afghan SIV Applicants, in the adjudication of special immigrant visa applications under section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4)), as provided for under section 602(b)(1) of the AAPA. The information requested on the form is limited to that which is necessary to adjudicate the applicant's petition for classification.
Form DS-157 is available in an electronic PDF format at
Announcement of meeting.
The Department of State will host a virtual, open meeting of the Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee (CERAC). There will not be an in-person option for this meeting.
CERAC will meet virtually March 22, 2024 from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. (EST).
Bureau of Energy Resources, Energy Officer Mark Murray at
Any written comments should be emailed to
Advisory committee charter renewal; notice.
The Secretary of State announces renewal of the charter of the Department of State Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee (CERAC), in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Mark Murray, 771-205-0994,
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 13224, as amended (“E.O. 13224” or “Order”), I hereby determine that the person known as Ansarallah (also known as Ansar Allah, Ansarullah, Partisans of God, Supporters of God, and Houthi group) is a foreign person who has committed or attempted to commit, poses a significant risk of committing, or has participated in training to commit, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
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.
The designation goes into effect on February 16, 2024. This notice shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC) meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the AAAC.
The meeting will be held on March 13, 2024, between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Requests for accommodations for a disability must be received by March 6, 2024.
Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than March 6, 2024.
The meeting will be held at the FAA Headquarters, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. In-person attendance is limited to Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee members and selected FAA support staff. Members of the public who wish to observe the meeting through virtual means can access the livestream on the following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event:
Gary Kolb, Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, at
The AAAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, in accordance with Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C. App. 2) to provide the FAA with advice on key drone and advanced air mobility (AAM) integration issues by helping to identify challenges and prioritize improvements.
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
Additional details will be posted on the AAAC internet website address listed in the
The meeting will be open to the public via livestream. Members of the public who wish to observe the virtual meeting can access the livestream on the following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event:
The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to time constraints. Written statements submitted by the deadline will be provided to the AAAC members before the meeting. Any member of the public may submit a written statement to the committee at any time.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the City of Worcester, MA to Dispose of 1.1 Acres at Worcester Regional Airport, Worcester, MA. The land is no longer needed for aviation purposes and can be disposed without affecting future aviation needs of the airport. The revenue generated by the disposal will be placed into the airport's operation and maintenance fund.
Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2024.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under
Ms. Amy E Quam, Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Telephone: 781-238-7618.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
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 nor 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 March 19, 2024.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-2072 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Shannon Uplinger, 202-267-6107, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from two individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against operation of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) by persons with a current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope (transient loss of consciousness), dyspnea (shortness of breath), collapse, or congestive heart failure. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ICDs to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2024-0003 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
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,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2024-0003), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
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
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The two individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from § 391.41(b)(4). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard found in § 391.41(b)(4) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
Brenda Smith is a class A driver's license holder in Mississippi. A January 3, 2024, letter from Brenda Smith's cardiologist reports that their ICD was implanted on December 12, 2013, for ischemic cardiomyopathy. Brenda Smith's cardiologist also reports that although they do not have records prior to 2020, Brenda Smith's ICD has not deployed.
Ofer Zacks is a class C driver's license holder in California. A January 30, 2024, letter from, Ofer Zacks' cardiologist reports that their ICD was implanted for ischemic cardiomyopathy and systolic heart failure in 2015. Ofer Zacks' cardiologist also reports they have had no episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation since the device was monitored by the cardiologist's office.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 13 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions are applicable on March 15, 2024. The exemptions expire on March 15, 2026. Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0251, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0058, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0052, or Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0026 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0251, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0058, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0052, or Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0026), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA-2020-0052, or FMCSA-2021-0026) in the keyword box and click “Search.” Next, sort the results by “Posted (Newer-Older),” choose the first notice listed, click the “Comment” button, and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. However, FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 13 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
As of March 15, 2024, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2017-0251, FMCSA-2018-0058, FMCSA-2020-0052, or FMCSA-2021-0026. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 15, 2024 and will expire on March 15, 2026.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as defined by § 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (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 before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the 13 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning, Application for Employee Retention Credit (ERC) Voluntary Disclosure Program.
Written comments should be received on or before April 29, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202)317-5753, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
To participate in the initiative, taxpayers must submit information about the improper ERC claimed, refund received, their identifying information, and the identifying information of any preparer/advisor who assisted them with the ERC claim.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
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 March 29, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Melody Braswell by emailing
Form 8881 also implements IRC section 45T, which provides a credit for including an eligible automatic contribution arrangement (as defined in section 414(w)(3)) in a qualified employer plan sponsored by the employer. For an eligible employer, the section 45E credit is 50% of the qualified start-up costs for a tax year, up to $500 for the tax year in which the plan is established or becomes effective and each of the two subsequent tax years. For an eligible employer, the section 45T credit is $500 for the first tax year in which the automatic contribution arrangement is included in the plan and for each of the two subsequent tax years.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice by clicking on the following link
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266-4688 or email
These forms are completed by educational institutions, training establishments and other organizations seeking approval of one or more programs of study for the payment of VA Education benefits rendered to eligible beneficiaries. The institutions submit the forms to the State Approving Agencies (SAAs) of jurisdiction for their review. By law, each SAA has the authority to make such approvals in their respective state. VA contracts with SAAs in each state for this approval assessment work.
Prior to the new legislative requirement, each SAA used their own application form(s), making it difficult for training institutions operating in more than one state to readily complete the process, as different states required different information. The amendment to title 38 U.S.C. 3672 now ensures uniformity in the program approval process across all states. The uniform SAA applications are used by educational and training institutions to apply for initial approval of their programs for payment of VA benefits; to make revisions of existing program approvals, or to submit withdrawals of approved programs no longer being offered. The institutions complete either the VA Form 22-10287, or the VA Form 22-10288, based on the type of training offered at their institution. Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) will use the VA Form 22-10287 exclusively, and all other types of educational training establishments will use the VA Form 22-10288. Each institution may use the associated “Program List”, VA Form 22-10287a or VA Form 22-10288a to add, revise, or remove any program offered. In some cases, institutions may use their
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 29, 2024.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
VA Form 10-1394 will be used to collect necessary information from eligible Veterans applying for motor vehicle adaptive equipment. VA Form 10-0103 will be used to collect necessary information from eligible Veterans applying for HISA grants.
10-1394—1,500 hours.
10-0103—1,250 hours.
10-1394—15 minutes.
10-0103—5 minutes.
10-1394—6,000.
10-0103—15,000.
By direction of the Secretary.