Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Transit 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.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Final rule.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is amending and updating its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The amendments revise NASA's regulations to better align with the Agency's current and near future actions, adjust the level of NEPA review and documentation required for certain actions, and provide more concise descriptions of NASA actions. Additionally, consistent with NASA's requirement to review existing Categorical Exclusions (CatExs) at least every seven years to determine whether modifications, additions, or deletions are appropriate, this final rule incorporates updates to NASA's CatExs based on that review. With the exception of revisions to the legal authority citations, there are no textual changes between the proposed rule that published for public comment on May 3, 2023, and this final rule.
Effective April 11, 2024.
Tina Norwood, (202) 740-2308,
The National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their proposed actions (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 (CEQ regulations) implementing NEPA that provide the overarching framework for Federal agency implementation of NEPA. On July 16, 2020, the CEQ issued a final rule comprehensively updating its regulations implementing NEPA, 85 FR 43304 (July 16, 2020). The CEQ regulations require Federal agencies to develop or revise their procedures for implementing NEPA, as necessary, for consistency with CEQ's regulations or for efficiency (40 CFR 1507.3(b), (c)). However, the CEQ has extended the deadline for agencies to propose conforming adjustments to their agency NEPA procedures until September 14, 2023, 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). Moreover, consistent with Executive Orders (E.O.) 13990 of January 20, 2021, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, and E.O. 14008 of January 27, 2021, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, the CEQ is conducting a comprehensive review of the 2020 revisions to the CEQ regulations and is taking a phased approach to reconsider the regulations. See 86 FR 55757 (Oct. 7, 2021); 87 FR 23453 (Apr. 20, 2022). In this rulemaking, NASA is implementing new and revised CatExs, revising its list of actions normally requiring environmental impact statements or environmental assessments (EA), and making other clarifying non-substantive revisions. NASA will consider whether to propose additional changes to its procedures at the conclusion of CEQ's ongoing rulemaking process.
NASA's NEPA regulations are codified in 14 CFR subpart 1216.3 (Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act). NASA consulted with the CEQ during the development of these updated procedures and prior to their publication in the
In addition to NASA's implementing regulations, NASA provides specific instructions pertaining to NEPA program responsibilities internally through NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8580.1, Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and E.O. 12114, available at NASA's NEPA website
Since NASA's last NEPA regulatory revision in 2012, NASA's mission, programs, and strategic goals have evolved with a key focus on leading a new era of human space exploration, performing transformative aeronautics technology research, and continuing to study our planet and the solar system. This final rule builds upon decades of NASA's experience and seeks to better align with NASA's evolving technology and mission demands. NASA's NEPA regulations and policy will continue to be available on NASA's Public Portal at
The climate and extinction crises are escalating and pose an existential threat to humanity and the biosphere. It is imperative that NASA and other federal agencies use every NEPA analysis process to seek solutions to these crises. Our `spaceship Earth' is in trouble and we need to be taking bold and innovative actions to save it. Thank you very much for your consideration.”
Further, NASA's changes to its NEPA regulations are fully supported by: (1) the substantial administrative record, which provides supporting information for the review, development, and implementation of NASA's new and modified CatExs; (2) NASA's scoping and public notice and comment process, which has informed the Agency on the appropriate level of NEPA review to typically be applied to similar actions; and (3) final NEPA documents themselves, which are widely available to the public.
NASA directly benefits from its partnership with cooperating and consulting agencies and Native American Tribes that have jurisdiction over an aspect of a proposed action or special expertise with respect to any environmental issue. Such consultation and coordination are also required by other independent legal requirements (
NASA also agrees with the second commenter's statements regarding the importance of NEPA and its critical role in objective agency decision-making. NASA is not updating the rule to circumvent the NEPA process out of convenience or political expediency. Rather, the updates to the regulations seek to improve NASA's consideration of environmental impacts related to its evolving mission, which includes the study of the Earth and collection of data essential to man's understanding of short and long-term effects of climate change. By encouraging programmatic reviews and updating NASA's list of categorical exclusions, the regulation drives efficiencies that will help NASA further this mission. In addition, NASA's final rule provides transparency and public involvement, emphasizing NASA's commitment to the integrity of the NEPA process.
E.O.s 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. After conferring with the Office of Management and Budget, this final rule has been determined to not meet the criteria set forth under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 for designation as a “significant regulatory action.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements
The final rule revises agency procedures and guidance for implementing NEPA. NASA NEPA procedures are procedural guidance to assist in the fulfillment of Agency responsibilities under NEPA but are not the Agency's final determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a particular proposed action. The CEQ sets forth the requirements for establishing agency NEPA procedures in its regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3. The CEQ regulations do not require agencies to conduct NEPA analyses or prepare NEPA documentation when establishing their NEPA procedures. The determination that establishing agency NEPA procedures does not require supporting NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in
NASA has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132, Federalism. The Agency has concluded that the rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O., will not impose any compliance costs on the states, and will not have substantial direct effects on the states or the relationship between the National Government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary.
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), NASA has assessed the effects of the final rule on state, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. This final rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any state, local, or Tribal government, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
NASA does not expect this final rule to have any economic impact on the overall economy of the United States; state, local, or Tribal governments or communities; or any private party involved in commercial space launch activities at NASA facilities. Given the most recent data NASA has available, most NASA actions fall within the scope of a CatEx (98 percent categorically excluded, 1.4 percent had an environmental assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact, and 0.16 percent had an environmental impact statement (EIS)/Record of Decision). By expanding the list of actions covered by a CatEx, this final rule promotes more efficient NEPA compliance without sacrificing the integrity of the environmental impact review process for those actions which may require an EA or EIS.
The updates to several existing NASA CatExs and the addition of nine new CatExs are intended to further streamline NASA NEPA compliance for actions that, individually or cumulatively, do not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The final rule does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, NASA loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. The final rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues; rather it promotes consistency with the CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations, thereby providing more regulatory certainty concerning NEPA compliance obligations to both NASA programs and commercial space operators who may propose actions that would occur on NASA jurisdictional facilities. Therefore, this final rule is not expected to have any adverse effect, economically or otherwise, on NASA, any other Federal, state, local, or Tribal entity, or any private party who may propose an action that would occur at a NASA jurisdictional facility.
Environmental impact statements, Flood plains, Foreign relations.
For the reasons given in the preamble, NASA amends 14 CFR part 1216 as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20101
51 U.S.C. 20101
(b) Through this subpart, NASA adopts the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) and supplements those regulations with this subpart, for actions proposed by NASA that are subject to NEPA. This subpart and NASA's NEPA policy are available on NASA's Public Portal at
(a) The NASA Senior Agency Official (SAO), is the Associate Administrator, Mission Support Directorate. The SAO is responsible for overall Agency NEPA compliance, including integration of NEPA into the Agency's planning and decision making and resolving implementation issues.
(1) The NASA Senior Environmental Official (SEO) is the Assistant Administrator, Office of Strategic Infrastructure. The SEO, in consultation with the SAO, is responsible for development and implementation of NASA NEPA policy requirements and guidance which fully integrate NEPA compliance into Agency planning and decision-making processes. To the extent the CEQ's implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 reserve a specific authority to the SAO, the SAO is the responsible NASA official for resolving matters related to that specific authority.
(2) The NASA Headquarters/Environmental Management Division (HQ/EMD), in consultation with the SEO, is responsible for implementing NEPA functions and guiding NASA's integration of NEPA into the Agency's planning and decision making. HQ/EMD provides oversight of all NASA entities in implementing their assigned responsibilities under NEPA. HQ/EMD, in coordination with the Center Environmental Management Office, is responsible for determining the appropriate level of NEPA documentation and maintaining a publicly accessible internet portal which includes information on the status of environmental impact statements (EISs) and other elements of NASA's NEPA program (
(3) Each NASA Center has an environmental management office that
(b) The “Responsible Official” is the NASA official who will ensure that planning and decision-making for each proposed Agency action complies with the regulations in this subpart and with Agency NEPA policy and guidance provided by the SAO, SEO, HQ/EMD, and the Center's environmental management office as applicable.
(c) NASA must comply with this subpart when considering issuance of a permit, lease, easement, or grant to a non-Federal party and may seek such non-Federal party's assistance in obtaining necessary information and completing the NEPA process.
(a) NEPA is a procedural statute intended to ensure Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions in the decision-making process. Full integration of the NEPA process with NASA project and program planning improves Agency decisions and ensures:
(1) Consideration of sustainability, environmental stewardship, and compliance with applicable environmental statutes, regulations, and policies.
(2) NASA's analyses and documentation are prepared using a process that is transparent to the public, including opportunities for receipt and consideration of public comment, when appropriate.
(3) Potential program and project risks and delays are minimized.
(b) In considering whether the effects of a proposed action are significant and determining the appropriate level of NEPA review and documentation (
(c) NASA shall consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of a proposed Agency action, along with technical, economic, public health and safety, security, and other factors that are reasonably foreseeable, beginning in the early planning stage of a proposed action. NASA will not take any action that would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives prior to completing NEPA review except as provided in 40 CFR 1506.1.
(d) Records of Environmental Consideration (RECs) will be used to document: (1) Application of specific categorical exclusions to proposed actions;
(2) Adoption of Federal draft or final NEPA documents;
(3) Reevaluation of an existing NEPA document; and
(4) Determination of whether an action fits within an existing NEPA document, including a programmatic NEPA document.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Categorical exclusions (CatExs) are categories of Agency actions that normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore do not require preparation of an EA or EIS. CatExs reduce paperwork, improve Government efficiency, and eliminate delays in initiating and completing proposed actions having no significant environmental impact. For some CatExs, as indicated in paragraph (d) of this section, a REC is required.
(b) Application of CatExs and presence of extraordinary circumstances:
(1) A proposed action may be categorically excluded if the action fits within the categories listed in paragraph (d) of this section and it does not involve any extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant effect.
(2) If an extraordinary circumstance as described in paragraph (c) of this section is present, NASA may nevertheless categorically exclude the proposed action if the action fits within the categories listed in paragraph (d) of this section and NASA determines that implementation of mitigation measures, such as relocation of the proposed action to an alternative site or limiting construction activities to certain seasonal periods of the year to avoid the extraordinary circumstance(s) in question, are sufficient to allow the proposed action to be categorically excluded.
(c) Extraordinary circumstances include situations where the proposed action:
(1) Has a reasonable likelihood of having a significant effect on public health and safety or the human environment.
(3) Is of significantly greater scope or size than is normal for the particular category of action.
(4) Has a reasonable likelihood of having effects that would violate Federal, state, Tribal, or local laws, or other enforceable requirements applicable to environmental protection.
(5) May adversely affect sensitive resources, such as, but not limited to, Federally listed threatened or endangered species, their designated critical habitat, wilderness areas, floodplains, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, coastal zones, wild and scenic rivers, and significant fish or wildlife habitat, unless the impact has been resolved through another environmental review process (
(6) May adversely affect national natural landmarks or cultural or historic resources, including, but not limited to, property listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, unless the impact has been resolved through another review process (
(d) The following actions normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment and are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS:
(1) * * *
(ii) Issuing procedural rules, manuals, directives, and requirements.
(iv) Preparing documents, including design and feasibility studies, analytical supply and demand studies, reports and recommendations, master and strategic plans, and other advisory documents.
(v) Information-gathering exercises, such as inventories, audits, and studies.
(vi) Preparing and disseminating information, including document mailings, publications, classroom materials, conferences, speaking engagements, websites, and other educational/informational activities.
(ix) Field studies, including water sampling, monitoring wells, cultural resources surveys, biological surveys, geologic surveys, modeling or simulations, routine data collection and analysis, and/or temporary equipment.
(2) * * *
(i) Routine maintenance, minor construction or rehabilitation, minor demolition, minor modification, minor repair, and continuing or altered operations at, or of, existing NASA or NASA-funded or -approved facilities and equipment, such as buildings, roads, grounds, utilities, communication systems, and ground support systems (
(ii) Installing or removing equipment, including component parts, at existing Government or private facilities.
(iii) Contributing equipment, software, technical advice, exchanging data, and consulting with other agencies and public and private entities.
(v) Routine packaging, labeling, storage, transportation, and disposal of materials and wastes, in accordance with applicable Federal, state, Tribal, or local laws or requirements. Examples include but are not limited to hazardous, non-hazardous, and other regulated materials and wastes.
(vi) Habitat and species management activities conducted within the boundaries of NASA-controlled properties in accordance with applicable Federal, state, or local requirements. Examples include but are not limited to restoration of unique or critical habitat; thinning or brush control to improve growth of natural habitat, reduce invasive species, or reduce fire hazard; prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel build-up, reduce invasive species, or improve native plant vigor; planting appropriate vegetation that does not include noxious weeds or invasive plants; or wildlife management activities (REC required).
(vii) Small-scale, short-term cleanup actions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or other authorities to reduce risk to human health or the environment from the release or imminent and substantial threat of release of a hazardous substance other than high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, including treatment (such as incineration, encapsulation, physical or chemical separation, and compaction), recovery, storage, or disposal of wastes at existing facilities currently handling the type of waste involved in the action.
(viii) Replacement of existing energy sources with alternative or renewable energy sources that comply with existing permit conditions.
(ix) Routine maintenance, repair, and operation of vessels (including unmanned autonomous surface vessels), aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems), overland/surface transportation vehicles, and other transportation systems as applicable. Examples include but are not limited to transportation or relocation of NASA equipment and hardware by barge, aircraft, or surface transportation system (
(3) Research, Development, and Science Activities including:
(i) Research, development, testing, and evaluation in compliance with all applicable Federal, state, Tribal, or local laws or requirements and Executive Orders. This includes the research, development, testing, and evaluation of scientific instruments proposed for use on spacecraft, aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems), sounding rockets, balloons, laboratories, watercraft, or other outdoor activities.
(ii) Use of small quantities of radioactive materials used for instrument detectors, calibration, and other purposes. Materials may be associated with the proposed use on spacecraft, aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems), sounding rockets, balloons, laboratories, watercraft, or other outdoor activities.
(iii) Use of lasers for research and development, scientific instruments and measurements, and distance and ranging, where such use meets all applicable Federal, state, Tribal, or local laws or requirements and Executive orders. This includes lasers associated with spacecraft, aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems), sounding rockets, balloons, laboratories, watercraft, or other outdoor activities.
(iv) Use of non-space nuclear system payloads on various platforms (
(v) Return of samples from solar system bodies (
(4) * * *
(ii) Granting or accepting easements, leases, licenses, rights-of-entry, and permits to use NASA property, or any non-NASA property, for activities that would be categorically excluded in accordance with this section (REC required).
(iii) Transfer or disposal of real property, property rights, or interests if a resulting change in use is a use that would be categorically excluded under this section (REC required).
(iv) Transferring real property administrative control to another Federal agency, including the return of public domain lands to the Department of the Interior (DoI) or other Federal agencies, and reporting of property as excess and surplus to the General Services Administration (GSA) for disposal, when the agency receiving administrative control (or GSA, following receipt of a report of excess) shall complete any necessary NEPA review prior to any change in land use (REC required).
(vi) Change in the facility status of real property assets (
(vii) Reductions, realignments, or relocation of personnel into existing Federally owned or commercially leased space that does not involve a substantial change affecting the supporting infrastructure (
(5) * * *
(i) Periodic aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems) flight activities, including training and research and development, which are routine and comply with applicable Federal, state, Tribal, or local laws or requirements, and Executive Orders.
(ii) Relocation of similar aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems) not resulting in a substantial increase in total flying hours, number of aircraft operations, operational parameters (
(e) The Responsible Official shall review the proposed action in its early
(a) NASA shall prepare an EA, which complies with 40 CFR 1501.5, when a proposed action is not categorically excluded and is not likely to have significant effects or when the significance of the effects is unknown. NASA shall consider the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the action when determining whether to prepare an EA.
(b) NASA actions normally requiring an EA include:
(1) Altering the ongoing operations at a NASA Center where the significance of the environmental effect(s) is unknown.
(2) Construction or modifications of facilities that represent a major change to an existing master plan and could result in a change in the environmental effect(s).
(3) Actions that are expected to result in major changes to established land use.
(4) Launching a spacecraft containing a space nuclear system. Space nuclear systems include radioisotope power systems, such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators and radioisotope heater units, and fission systems used for surface power and spacecraft propulsion.
(a) NASA shall prepare an EIS for actions that are likely to significantly impact the quality of the human environment, including actions for which an EA demonstrates that significant environmental impacts will potentially occur which will not be reduced or eliminated by changes to the proposed action or mitigation of its potentially significant environmental impacts. An EIS shall be prepared and published in accordance with CEQ's implementing regulations (40 CFR part 1502).
(b) NASA actions normally requiring an EIS include:
(1) Development and operation of new NASA-developed launch vehicles or space transportation systems.
(2) Management, including recovery, transport, and curation, of sample returns to Earth from solar system bodies (such as asteroids, comets, planets, dwarf planets, and planetary moons) that would receive a Restricted Earth Return categorization. NASA requires such a mission to include additional measures to ensure any potential indigenous life form would be contained so it could not adversely impact humans or Earth's environment.
(3) Substantial construction projects expected to result in significant effect(s) on the quality of the human and natural environment when such construction and its effects are not within the scope of an existing master plan.
(a) For actions that require EAs or EISs, NASA encourages programmatic-level analysis for actions that are similar in nature, broad in scope, or likely to have similar environmental effects. Programmatic NEPA analyses may take place in the form of an EA or EIS. (b) Tiering from previously prepared EISs or EAs is appropriate when it would eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and exclude from consideration issues already decided. Tiering from a programmatic-level NEPA document is appropriate for site- or project-specific actions that are included within the scope of the programmatic-level analysis.
(a) In cases where a major Federal action remains to occur, supplemental documentation may be required for previously prepared EAs or EISs under the following circumstances:
(1) If substantial changes are made to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or
(2) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action and its impacts; or
(3) NASA determines that the purposes of NEPA will be furthered by doing so.
(b) The preparation of a supplemental EA or EIS shall be undertaken using the same procedural requirements set forth in 40 CFR 1501.5 or 40 CFR part 1502, as applicable; however, in the event a supplement to an EIS is required, scoping shall not be required unless, at NASA's discretion and in consideration of the factors and requirements of 40 CFR 1501.9, it is determined to be necessary or would otherwise further the purposes of NEPA.
(c) When it is unclear if an EA or EIS supplement is required, NASA may prepare a Supplement Analysis.
(1) The Supplement Analysis will discuss the circumstances that are pertinent to deciding whether to prepare a supplemental EA or EIS.
(2) The Supplement Analysis will contain sufficient information for NASA to determine whether:
(i) An existing EA or EIS should be supplemented;
(ii) A new EA or EIS should be prepared; or
(iii) No further NEPA documentation is required.
(3) NASA shall make the determination and the related Supplement Analysis available to the public for information.
(d) When applicable, NASA shall incorporate the determination and supporting Supplement Analysis made under paragraph (b) of this section, into the administrative record related to the action that is the subject of the EA or EIS supplement or determination.
When the analysis proceeds to an EA or EIS and mitigation measures are adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing the significance of environmental impacts, such mitigation measures will be identified in the EA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or the EIS Record of Decision (ROD). NASA shall implement mitigation measures (including adaptive management strategies, where appropriate) consistent with applicable FONSIs and/or RODs and shall monitor their implementation and effectiveness. The Responsible Official shall ensure that funding for such mitigation measures is included in the program or project budget.
(a) The classified status of a proposed action does not relieve NASA of the requirement to assess, document, and consider the environmental impacts of a proposed action.
(a) When the Responsible Official determines that emergency circumstances exist which make it necessary to take immediate response and/or recovery action(s) before preparing a NEPA analysis, then the following provisions apply:
(1) The Responsible Official may undertake immediate emergency response and/or recovery action(s) necessary to protect life, property, or valuable resources. When taking such action(s), the Responsible Official shall, to the extent practicable, mitigate foreseeable adverse environmental impacts.
(2) At the earliest practicable time, the Responsible Official shall notify the SAO of the emergency and any past, ongoing, or future NASA emergency response and/or recovery action(s). The SAO shall determine if NEPA applies and the appropriate level of NEPA analysis to document the emergency. If the emergency response and/or recovery action(s) will reasonably result in significant environmental impacts, the SAO shall consult with the CEQ about alternative arrangements for compliance with NEPA.
(b) If the Responsible Official proposes emergency response and/or recovery actions that will continue beyond those needed to immediately protect life, property, and valuable resources, the Responsible Official shall consult with the SAO to determine the appropriate level of NEPA compliance. If continuation of the emergency actions will reasonably result in significant environmental impacts, the SAO shall consult with the CEQ about alternative arrangements for compliance.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding 11 entries to the Entity List, under the destinations of the Peoples Republic of China (China) (6), the Russian Federation (Russia) (3), and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (2). These entities have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. This rule also modifies one existing entity on the Entity List under the destination of China.
This rule is effective April 11, 2024.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email:
The Entity List (Supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR. The EAR impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of, most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
The ERC determined to add Khalaj Trading LLC and Mahdi Khalaj Amirhosseini, both under the destination of the UAE to the Entity List for engaging in the export and attempted export of items on the Commerce Control List (Supplement 1 to part 774 of the EAR) from the United States to Iran through the UAE, in apparent violation of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) (see 31 CFR part 560) and the EAR. These activities are contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States under § 744.11 of the EAR.
The ERC determined to add LINKZOL (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. and Xi'an Like Innovative Information Technology Co., Ltd., both under the destination of China, to the Entity List for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of China's military modernization efforts, including in support of Military-Intelligence End Users. The ERC also determined to add Beijing Anwise Technology Co., Ltd. and SITONHOLY (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., both under the destination of China, to the Entity List for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of China's military modernization efforts. These activities are contrary to U.S. national security
The ERC determined to add Jiangxi Xintuo Enterprise Co. Ltd., under the destination of China, to the Entity List for supporting Russia's military through the procurement, development, and proliferation of Russian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This activity is contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States under § 744.11. In addition, this entity qualifies as a military end user under § 744.21(g) of the EAR. This entity is receiving a footnote 3 designation because the ERC has determined that it is a Russian or Belarusian `military end user' pursuant to § 744.21 of the EAR. A footnote 3 designation subjects this entity to the Russia/Belarus-Military End User Foreign Direct Product (FDP) rule, detailed in § 734.9(g) of the EAR. The entity is added with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of denial for all items subject to the EAR apart from food and medicine designated as EAR99, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The ERC determined to add to the Entity List Aerosila JSC SPE, Delta-Aero LLC, and JSC ODK-Star, under the destination of Russia, and Shenzhen Jiasibo Technology Co., Ltd., under the destination of China, for working as a part of a network to procure aerospace components, including dual-use components for UAV applications, for the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company (HESA) in Iran. These components are used to develop and produce Shahed-series UAVs which have been used by Iran to attack oil tankers in the Middle East and by Russia in Ukraine. This activity is contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States under § 744.11 and these entities qualify as military end users under § 744.21(g) of the EAR. These entities are receiving a footnote 3 designation because the ERC has determined that they are Russian or Belarusian `military end users' pursuant to § 744.21 and are subject to the Russia/Belarus-Military End User Foreign Direct Product (FDP) rule, detailed in § 734.9(g) of the EAR. The entities are added with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of denial for all items subject to the EAR apart from food and medicine designated as EAR99, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following 11 entities, including aliases where appropriate, to the Entity List:
• Beijing Anwise Technology Co., Ltd.;
• Jiangxi Xintuo Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
• LINKZOL (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.;
• Shenzhen Jiasibo Technology Co., Ltd.;
• SITONHOLY (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.;
• Xi'an Like Innovative Information Technology Co., Ltd.
• Aerosila JSC SPE;
• Delta-Aero LLC;
• JSC ODK-Star.
• Khalaj Trading LLC;
• Mahdi Khalaj Amirhosseini.
This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry on the Entity List under the destination of China. Specifically, the ERC determined to add one alias to the entry for Shanghai Biren Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., for a total of three aliases.
For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on April 11, 2024, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) before May 13, 2024. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on May 13, 2024, require a license in accordance with this final rule.
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.
1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.
5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
The revision and additions read as follows:
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
We are finalizing our proposed regulation to apply nationwide the In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM) rental subsidy exception that has until now been available only for SSI applicants and recipients residing in seven States. This final rule provides that a “business arrangement” exists, such that the SSI applicant or recipient is not considered to be receiving ISM in the form of room or rent, when the amount of monthly required rent for the property equals or exceeds the presumed maximum value (PMV).
This final rule will be effective September 30, 2024.
Tamara Levingston, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 Security Blvd., Robert M. Ball Building, Suite 2512B, Woodlawn, MD 21235, 410-966-7384. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
The SSI program provides monthly payments to: (1) adults and children with a disability or blindness; and (2) adults aged 65 or older. Eligible individuals must meet all the requirements set forth in the Social Security Act (Act), including having resources and income below specified amounts.
The Act and our regulations
ISM includes shelter that is given to an individual or that the individual receives because someone else pays for it.
Our regulations clarify that an individual is not receiving ISM in the form of room or rent if they are paying the monthly required rent charged under a “business arrangement.”
Following court cases that challenged how we applied these ISM rules for rental subsidy, we provided an exception for residents of the Seventh Circuit (in our regulations),
Consistent with the
We are making these changes based on the Commissioner of Social Security's rulemaking authority specified in sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), 1631(d)(1), 1631(e)(1)(A), and 1633(a) of the Social Security Act. These sections of the Act give the Commissioner the authority to adopt rules relating to, among other things, what data the Commissioner determines is necessary for the agency to collect for the effective and efficient administration of the SSI program, as well as the nature and extent of the evidence applicants and recipients need to provide to establish benefit eligibility. The modifications to our policy regarding how we will determine rental subsidy are a proper exercise of the Commissioner's rulemaking authority under the Act.
The NPRM includes a discussion of the ISM policy
Thus, applying nationally the definition of “business arrangement” based on the PMV rather than the CMRV focuses on the SSI applicant's or recipient's purchasing power or the actual economic benefit they receive and ensures that all SSI applicants and recipients, regardless of where they reside, will have the same policy applied to them regarding the definition of a business arrangement. This policy change therefore supports our goal of enhancing equality in the programs we administer for all applicants and recipients.
We solicited comments on the proposed rule and received 179 public comments on our NPRM from August 24, 2023, through October 23, 2023. All comments are available for public viewing at
• Individuals; and
• Advocacy groups, such as the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities.
We carefully considered the public comments we received. A significant majority of commenters (170 comments) supported the policy we proposed in the NRPM—to extend the rental subsidy exception nationwide—without reservation or suggestions for modifications. Some commenters agreed with the proposal, but recommended further amendments to ensure the greatest number of SSI applicants and recipients could avail themselves of the benefits provided by the new policy. Only one commenter disagreed with the proposal altogether.
We received several comments suggesting changes that are not feasible for us to make or are outside the scope of the proposed rule and the final rule. For example, some commenters recommended changes to the statutorily set resource limits, and others recommended that we do away with counting ISM altogether. Even though these comments are outside the scope of the NPRM and final rule, we address them in a general manner to help the public better understand the SSI program. We note that commenters frequently compared or conflated the concepts of
In contrast,
Regarding the comments on our development criteria for rental liability, we acknowledge the diverse viewpoints on our existing requirements. We note that we do accept statements from an applicant or recipient to establish rental liability in some circumstances—if the individual lives alone or if the only other household members are the spouse, a deemor,
As for the possibility of oral rental agreements, we note that our existing rental liability verification does not require written evidence of all rental agreements. For example, we accept verbal confirmation from a landlord of a rental agreement or submission of rent receipts to establish rental liability, as long as the rent receipts satisfy certain criteria.
Regarding the comments on the FNS policies for implementing their SNAP program, we note that the eligibility requirements for SSI and SNAP are not the same. Thus, it is difficult to compare point-for-point the eligibility and verification requirements for the two programs. For example, as discussed above, a critical factor that we need to determine for SSI purposes is whether an applicant or recipient is living in their own household or another person's household, as that affects whether we use the PMV rule or the VTR rule to value the individual's ISM. Our rental liability policy is designed to ensure we get the information we need to verify whether an applicant or recipient is living in their own household or the household of another person. In contrast, for example, there are SNAP requirements that appear to be more focused on verifying State residency, which is a factor more important for SNAP eligibility.
Finally, as to the commenter's statement that our rental subsidy rule “would not work unless individuals were still required to report proof of their rental payments,” we agree that we will continue to require information about applicants' and recipients' monthly required rent for the purposes of calculating rental subsidy ISM, when it applies.
However, we note that under our current
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OMB determined that this final rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 14094. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.
Our Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that implementation of this final rule would result in a total increase in Federal SSI payments of $837 million over fiscal years 2024 through 2033, assuming implementation of this rule on September 30, 2024. These transfers reflect an estimation that approximately 41,000 individuals who would be eligible under our current rules will have their Federal SSI payment increased by an average of $132 per month in 2024 attributable to implementation of this rule. There would also be an annual average of an additional 14,000 individuals from fiscal year 2024 through 2033 who are not eligible under current rules who would be newly eligible and would receive payments under the final rule.
Our Office of Budget, Finance, and Management estimates that this regulation will result in net administrative savings of $10 million for the 10-year period from FY 2024 to FY 2033. The net administrative savings are mainly a result of unit time savings as field office employees will not have to spend time developing CMRV for all rental subsidy calculations during initial claims, pre-effectuation reviews, redeterminations, and post-eligibility actions. The savings are offset by costs to update our systems, costs to send notices to inform current recipients of the policy changes, costs to address inquiries from the notices, and costs because of more individuals being eligible for SSI benefits, which increases claims, reconsiderations, appeals, redeterminations, and post-eligibility actions.
We anticipate the following qualitative benefits generated from this policy:
• Saving time and effort for claimants and third parties who may have evidence related to a claimant's application because they would need to submit less information. We estimate at a minimum that this will result in more than 7,000 hours of time saved in annual reduced paperwork burden, representing an opportunity cost of $1,140,526 (see the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the preamble below for specifics).
• Potentially get faster determinations or decisions regarding SSI eligibility, payment amount, or both, which would have both quantitative effects financially and qualitatively may alleviate stress for applicants and recipients associated with the length of time it may take to obtain SSI.
• Administratively easier to apply the same policy nationwide.
We do not anticipate more than
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
We analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132 and determined that this final rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. We also determined that this final rule will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities
We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
This final rule does not require any new collections or revisions to existing collections. However, we anticipate the application of the revisions based on this rule will cause a burden change to our currently approved information collections under the following information collection requests: 0960-0174, the SSA-8006, Statement of Living Arrangements, In-Kind Support and Maintenance; and 0960-0454, the SSA-L5061, Letter to Landlord Requesting Rental Information. Based on our current management information data from the seven states currently implementing these changes, we anticipate these changes will allow for verbal responses from landlords in place of the current form in some situations, thus reducing the overall burden as SSA will not require those respondents to complete the entirety of Form SSA-L5061. In addition, we note that for those who use the paper form, we will send a revised version with question #5 removed. We also anticipate a slight burden reduction to Form SSA-8006, as the respondents may not need to provide as much detail pertaining to their rental subsidy agreement due to the proposed rule.
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 24, 2023, at 88 FR 75910. In that NPRM, we solicited comments under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The comments section above includes our responses to the PRA-related public comments we received under the NPRM.
The following chart shows the time burden information associated with the final rule:
The following chart shows the theoretical cost burdens associated with the final rule:
SSA submitted a single new Information Collection Request which encompasses the revisions to both information collections (currently under OMB Numbers 0960-0174, and 0960-0454) to OMB for the approval of the changes due to the final rule. After approval of this information collection, we will adjust the figures associated with the current OMB numbers for these forms to reflect the new burden.
As we have revised the associated burdens for the above-mentioned forms since we made revisions to the final rule which were not included at the NPRM stage, we are currently soliciting comment on the burden for the forms as shown in the charts above. If you would like to submit comments, please send them to the following locations:
You can submit comments until May 13, 2024, which is 30 days after the publication of this document. To receive a copy of the OMB clearance package, contact the SSA Reports Clearance Officer using any of the above contact methods. We prefer to receive comments by email or fax.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
The Commissioner of Social Security, Martin O'Malley, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Faye I. Lipsky, who is the primary Federal Register Liaison for SSA, for purposes of publication in the
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR part 416 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1381a, 1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c(f), 1382j, 1383, and 1383b; sec. 211, Pub. L. 93-66, 87 Stat. 154 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note).
(b) * * *
(1) We calculate in-kind support and maintenance considering any shelter that is given to you or that you receive because someone else pays for it. Shelter includes room, rent, mortgage payments, real property taxes, heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, sewerage, and garbage collection services. You are not receiving in-kind support and maintenance in the form of room or rent if you are paying the amount charged under a business arrangement. A business arrangement exists when the amount of monthly required rent to be paid equals or exceeds the presumed maximum value described in § 416.1140(a)(1). If the required amount of rent is less than the presumed maximum value, we will impute as in-kind support and maintenance the difference between the required amount of rent and either the presumed maximum value or the current market rental value (see § 416.1101), whichever is less. In addition, cash payments to uniformed service members as allowances for on-base housing or privatized military housing are in-kind support and maintenance.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final amendment; final order.
With the issuance of this final order, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is permanently placing 2-(2-(4-ethoxybenzyl)-1
Effective April 11, 2024.
Dr. Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
The United States is a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Mar. 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407, 520 U.N.T.S. 151 (Single Convention), as amended by the 1972 Protocol. Article 3, paragraph 7 of the Single Convention requires that if the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (Commission) adds a substance to one of the schedules of such Convention, and the United States receives notification of such scheduling decision from the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Secretary-General), the United States, as a signatory Member State, is obligated to control the substance under its national drug control legislation. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), if control of a substance is required “by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970,” the Attorney General must issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by 21 U.S.C. 811(a) or 812(b), and without regard to the procedures prescribed by 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b). The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
On April 12, 2022, DEA issued a temporary scheduling order, placing etodesnitazene,
On November 24, 2022, the Director-General of the World Health Organization recommended to the Secretary-General that etodesnitazene,
As discussed in the background section, etodesnitazene,
Law enforcement reports demonstrate that etodesnitazene,
DEA is not aware of any claims or of any medical or scientific literature suggesting that etodesnitazene,
Consistent with 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), DEA concludes that etodesnitazene,
In order to meet the United States' obligations under the Single Convention and because etodesnitazene,
Etodesnitazene,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), as amended by E.O. 14094, section 1(b), and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review); and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This action makes no change in the status quo, as etodesnitazene,
This action meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This action does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. This action does not have substantial direct effects 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.
This action does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. The action does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The CSA provides for an expedited scheduling action where control is required by the United States' obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols. 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1). If control is required pursuant to such international treaty, convention, or protocol, the Attorney General, as delegated to the Administrator, must issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, and “without regard to” the findings and rulemaking procedures otherwise required for scheduling actions in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b).
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), scheduling actions for drugs that are required to be controlled by the United States' obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, shall be issued by order (as opposed to scheduling by rule pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)). Therefore, DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this scheduling action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA or any other law. As explained above, the CSA exempts this final order from notice and comment. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this action.
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. Also, this action does not impose new or modify existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. However, this action does require compliance with the following existing OMB collections: 1117-0003, 1117-0004, 1117-0006, 1117-0008, 1117-0009, 1117-0010, 1117-0012, 1117-0014, 1117-0021, 1117-0023, 1117-0029, and 1117-0056. 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.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This order is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, DEA is submitting reports under the CRA to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 5, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary rule; temporary scheduling order; extension.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene, as identified in this order. The schedule I status of these three substances currently is in effect through April 12, 2024. This temporary order will extend the temporary scheduling of these three substances for one year, or until the permanent scheduling action for these substances is completed, whichever occurs first.
This temporary scheduling order, which extends schedule I control of three substances covered by an order (87 FR 21556, April 12, 2022), is effective April 12, 2024, and expires on April 12, 2025. If DEA publishes a final rule making this scheduling action permanent, this order will expire on the effective date of that rule, if the effective date is earlier than April 12, 2025.
Dr. Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
In this order, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) extends the temporary scheduling of the following three controlled substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation:
• butonitazene (2-(2-(4-butoxybenzyl)-5-nitro-1
• flunitazene (
• metodesnitazene (
On April 12, 2022, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), DEA published an order in the
Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the temporary scheduling of a substance expires at the end of two years from the
The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Administrator of DEA on her own motion under authority delegated by the Attorney General pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100, at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Administrator orders that the temporary scheduling of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene and their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible, be extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
The CSA provides for expedited temporary scheduling actions where necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), the Administrator, as delegated by the Attorney General, may, by order, temporarily place substances in schedule I. That same subsection also provides that the temporary scheduling of a substance shall expire at the end of two years from the date of the issuance of such temporary scheduling order, except that the Attorney General may, during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule the substance, extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year.
To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, DEA believes that the notice-and-comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this extension of the temporary scheduling action. The APA expressly differentiates between orders and rules, as it defines an “order” to mean a “final disposition, whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form, of an agency
In the alternative, even if this action were subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice-and-comment requirements and the delayed effective date requirements of such section, as any further delays in the process for extending the temporary scheduling order would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety that these substances would present if scheduling expired, for the reasons expressed in the temporary scheduling order.
Further, DEA believes that this order extending the temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, in this instance, since DEA believes this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule,” it is not subject to the requirements of the RFA when issuing this temporary action.
Additionally, in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563, and 14094, this action is not a significant regulatory action. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866, sec. 3(f), as amended by E.O. 14094, sec. 1(b), provides the definition of a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because this is not a rulemaking action, this is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. This action will not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules.
DEA will submit a copy of this temporary order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801-808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 5, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
The Peace Corps.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the regulations that the Peace Corps follows in processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. These amendments clarify and update procedures for requesting information from the Peace Corps and procedures that the Peace Corps follows in responding to requests from the public for information.
This rule is effective May 13, 2024.
David van Hoogstraten, 202-692-2150,
On June 30, 2016, President Obama signed into law the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (the Act). The Act specifically requires all agencies to review and update their FOIA regulations in accordance with its provisions, and the Peace Corps is making changes to its regulations accordingly. Among other requirements, the Act addresses a range of procedural issues that affect Peace Corps FOIA regulations, including requirements that agencies establish a minimum of 90 days for requesters to file an administrative appeal and that agencies provide notice to requesters of dispute resolution services at various times throughout the FOIA process. The final rule revises and updates policies and procedures concerning the Peace Corps FOIA process, which was last published as a final rule in the
The final rule makes adjustments for clarification, rearranges and redesignates sections in a more logical order, streamlines the language of some procedural provisions, and makes the following key amendments:
Section 303.2 is expanded to revise current definitions and add definitions for the following terms: “Compelling need,” “Confidential commercial information,” “Direct costs,” “Unusual circumstances,” and “Initial denial authority (IDA).”
Section 303.5 is revised to delete reference to a physical public reading room and to provide for a public electronic FOIA Library on the Peace Corps website on which certain specified records will be made available. Also, related to this change, the former § 303.6 (
The former § 303.8, has been redesignated as § 303.7 and is updated to provide revised procedures for the following paragraphs:
• (b) through (d) Submitting a FOIA request;
• (f) Requesting a waiver or reduction of fees;
• (h) Initial response/delays to FOIA requests;
• (j) Giving notice of delays; and
• (l) Requesting expedited processing and appeals from denials of requests for expedited processing.
A new § 303.8 sets forth guidelines and procedures for:
• Order of response to FOIA requests;
• Multitrack processing;
• Delays in responses due to unusual circumstances and notice of such delays and of the availability of both the FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services provided for by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS);
• Aggregating requests; and
• Expedited processing.
A revised § 303.9 provides that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested.
A new § 303.11 sets forth guidelines and procedures for:
• Electronic communication with requesters;
• Acknowledgement of requests that will take longer than 10 working days to process;
• Estimated dates of completion and interim responses;
• The granting of requests;
• Adverse determination of requests;
• Markings on released documents; and
• Use of records exclusions.
A renumbered § 303.13, formerly § 303.12, is updated to set forth revised guidelines and procedures for:
• Submitting appeals;
• Adjudication of appeals;
• Decisions on appeals;
• Engaging in dispute resolution services offered by OGIS; and
• When an appeal is required.
A new § 303.14 sets forth guidelines and procedures for:
• Designation of confidential commercial information;
• When notice to submitters is required;
• Exceptions to submitter notice requirements;
• Opportunity to object to disclosure;
• Analysis of objections;
• Notice of intent to disclose;
• Notice of FOIA lawsuit; and
• Requester notification.
A new § 303.15 sets forth guidelines and procedures for preserving records pertaining to the requests it receives under this subpart.
A revised § 303.16, formerly § 303.13, incorporates the new statutory
A redesignated § 303.17, formerly § 303.14, is updated to revise the definition of “employee” in this section to include volunteers and trainees of the Peace Corps for purposes only of § 303.17.
A new § 303.18 sets forth that nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
On November 28, 2023, the Peace Corps published a proposed rule with request for comments in the
During the 30-day comment period between November 28 and December 28, 2023, the Peace Corps received nine comments from three members of the public and one 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization. At the end of the public comment period, the Peace Corps reviewed and analyzed the comments. The comments are detailed in the next section, together with a discussion of the suggestions for revision that were considered and either adopted, or declined, and the rationale, therefore. The Peace Corps did not address an issue raised by a commenter, because it considered the subject matter to be outside the scope of this rulemaking. The commenter posed a question about access to the health records of employees, which is a matter governed by the Privacy Act.
The Peace Corps received several comments that expressed general support for the proposed regulatory changes. For example, one member of the public commended the Peace Corps for its proposed rule, stating that it “reflects a thoughtful approach to enhancing transparency and ensuring timely responses to FOIA requests.” However, commenters also raised concerns regarding the digitization of records and their efficient retrieval by the agency; the use of “professional” in 303.8(d)(3) when describing individuals who may qualify for expedited processing; the omission of a “presumption of openness;” the definition of certain terms; and the agency's reference to the “Guidelines” of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding fees.
One commenter expressed, in regard to fees and information searches, that electronic systems should be established to minimize the time used to locate responsive documents. The Peace Corps agrees and is currently working to acquire an electronic discovery (eDiscovery) solution that, among other things, will improve the agency's ability to carry out its procedures for disclosure of information under the FOIA.
One commentor noted the introduction of the term “professional” in § 303.8(d)(3) when describing individuals who may qualify for expedited processing and that it does not align with the statutory language of the FOIA, because it “unnecessarily narrows the scope of eligible requesters and could potentially exclude individuals who, while not professionals, play a significant role in informing the public about government activities.” The Peace Corps has adopted the suggestion of the commenter to remove “professional” from § 303.8(d)(3).
One commentor expressed concern regarding the Peace Corps' omission of the “presumption of openness,” stating that the absence of this “critical element in the proposed rule,” which is emphasized in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, “is a notable omission that could undermine the spirt of transparency and openness that FOIA embodies.” The Peace Corps agrees to explicitly state that the agency will administer the FOIA with a presumption of openness in the policy section, § 303.3 of this final rule.
One commentor indicated that the Peace Corp's definition of “educational institution” is too limited, as it does not account for the
One commentor raised three separate concerns with the Peace Corps' definition of a “representative of the news media.” First, was the inclusion of a definition of “news,” which the commentor felt would emphasize the request rather than focus on the requester, which would not be in alignment with the FOIA. Although the Peace Corps' language comes directly from the statute, the agency did remove the following sentence to address the concern raised: “The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public.” The agency determined that limiting “news” to “current events” and “current interest to the public” was not sufficiently broad and expressly focused on the content of such related FOIA requests rather than
Second, the commentor encouraged the Peace Corps, with respect to its requirement that a “representative of the news media” use “editorial skills to turn the raw materials [records] into a distinct work,” to adopt a broader standard. For example, the commentor indicated that a press release commenting on records should meet this requirement. The Peace Corps has determined that it is important to retain this language in the final rule, which comes directly from the statute, in light of how information sharing has evolved in recent years.
The commentor's third point is that the definition of a “representative of the news media” should include “alternative media” and “evolving news-media formats.” To clarify the breadth of news media entities intended to be included in the definition, the Peace Corps has explicitly made its list of news media entities non-exhaustive.
One commentor stated that the Peace Corps' definition of a “record” is “unnecessary,” as the FOIA already defines that term, and the Peace Corps' definition is “severely underinclusive.” The commentor suggested either removing the definition from the final rule or replacing it with a new proposed definition that better conforms with the language in the FOIA. The Peace Corps agrees with the commentor that its definition of “record” in this final rule should be broader and has therefore, adopted the definition of “record” as set forth in the Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended, and in any other applicable Federal statute (
One commentor found the Peace Corps' definition of “OIG records,” to be “unnecessary.” The commentor recommended either removing the definition from the language in the final rule or striking the following two phrases from the current definition: “in the possession” and “compiled for law enforcement, audit, and investigative functions and/or any other purpose authorized under the IG Act of 1978, as amended.” The Peace Corps notes that the definition of the term “OIG records” was in the Peace Corps' FOIA regulation at 22 CFR part 303, which became effective in December 2003, and the recent proposed rule did not alter the definition of “OIG records.” Therefore, the agency has retained its longstanding definition of “OIG records” in this final rule.
One commentor recommended the Peace Corps remove its reference in § 303.16(a) of its final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget's
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Oder 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation, and the Peace Corps has determined it to be non-significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing section 2 of the Executive order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017), supplemented by OMB's Memorandum titled “Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.' ”
This regulatory action will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This regulatory action does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.
Freedom of Information Act.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Peace Corps amends 22 CFR part 303 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 22 U.S.C. 2501
(1) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(2) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Peace Corps or Federal Government activity and the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information; or
(3) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the Peace Corps' or the Federal Government's integrity which affect public confidence.
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from offices or locations that are separate from the office processing the request;
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency or organization having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more offices of the Peace Corps having a substantial subject matter interest therein.
(a) The Peace Corps will administer the FOIA with a presumption of openness. The Peace Corps will make its records concerning its operations, activities, and business available to the public, consistent with the requirements of the FOIA. The agency will also consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever it determines that a full disclosure of a requested record is not possible. This includes taking reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information.
(b) Records that the FOIA requires agencies to make available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through the Peace Corps' website. The Peace Corps FOIA Office is responsible for determining which of its records must be made publicly available (including frequently requested records), identifying additional records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. The Peace Corps will ensure that its website of posted records and indices is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. The Peace Corps has a FOIA Public Liaison who can assist individuals in locating records.
(c) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(8), the Peace Corps may make discretionary disclosures of records or information, without a formal FOIA request and that may be exempt from disclosure under the FOIA whenever disclosure would not foreseeably harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption and disclosure is not prohibited by law. However, this policy does not create any enforceable right in a court of law or any other tribunal.
(d) Requests for records of the Office of Inspector General (OIG records), as defined in § 303.2, and appeals from denials of requests for OIG records are subject to this policy and will be granted or denied consistent with § 303.10(b) through (c) through their own FOIA adjudication process.
(a) The public reading room is no longer physically available. The Peace Corps makes information available to the public electronically through the Peace Corps' FOIA Library on its public website at
(b) Subject to the limitation stated in paragraph (c) of this section, the following records will be made available in the FOIA Library:
(1) All final public opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, and orders issued in the adjudication of cases that involve the Peace Corps;
(2) Statements of policy and interpretations adopted by the Peace Corps that are not published in the
(3) Administrative staff manuals and instructions to the staff that affect the public;
(4) Copies of frequently requested records, regardless of form or format, with a general index of such records:
(i) Released to any person in response to a public request for records which the Peace Corps determines are likely to become subject to subsequent requests for substantially the same records or
(ii) For which there have been 3 or more requests;
(5) The index required by § 303.6; and
(6) Other records the Peace Corps has determined are of general interest to members of the public in understanding activities of the Peace Corps or in dealing with the Peace Corps in connection with those activities.
(c) Records required by the FOIA to be available in the FOIA Library may be exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to section 552(b) of the FOIA. Such records will not be made available in the FOIA Library. Other records maintained in the FOIA Library may be edited by the redaction of information protected under section 552(b) of the FOIA. The extent of the redaction shall be indicated, unless doing so would harm an interest protected by the exemption under which the redaction is made. If technically feasible, the extent of the redaction shall be indicated at the place in the record where the redaction was made.
(d) Records required by the FOIA to be maintained shall be made available in the Peace Corps' electronic FOIA Library.
(e) Most public electronic records will also be made available to the public on the Peace Corps website at
(a) Except for records required by the FOIA to be published in the
(b) Requests for records under this section shall be:
(1) Made in writing, shall include the name of the requester, and the envelope, email, and/or the letter shall be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Request.” All such requests shall be addressed to the FOIA Officer. Requests by letter shall be directed to Peace Corps FOIA Officer, 1275 First Street NE, Washington DC 20526. Requests by email shall be directed to
(2) A request must reasonably describe the records requested so that employees of the Peace Corps who are familiar with the subject area of the request are able, with a reasonable amount of effort, to determine which particular records are within the scope of the request. If it is determined that a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the requester shall be so informed and provided an opportunity to confer with Peace Corps personnel in order to attempt to reformulate the request in a manner that will meet the needs of the requester and the requirements of this paragraph (b).
(c) The Peace Corps requires that first-party requesters provide the following information so that the Peace Corps can protect the personal information found in its files and ensure that records are disclosed only to the proper persons: the requester's full name, current address, citizenship or legal permanent resident alien status, date and place of birth (city, state, and country), and a
(d) To facilitate the location of records by the Peace Corps, a requester should try to provide the following kinds of information, if known:
(1) The specific event or action to which the record refers;
(2) The unit or program of the Peace Corps which may be responsible for or may have produced the record;
(3) The date of the record or the date or period to which it refers or relates;
(4) The type of record, such as an application, a particular form, a contract, or a report;
(5) Personnel of the Peace Corps who may have prepared or have knowledge of the record; or
(6) Citations to newspapers or publications which have referred to the record.
(e) The Peace Corps is not required to create a record or to perform research to satisfy a request.
(f) Any request for a waiver or reduction of fees should be included in the FOIA request, and any such request should indicate the grounds for a waiver or reduction of fees, as set out in § 303.16(k).
(g) The Peace Corps will provide records in the form or format indicated by the requester to the extent such records are readily reproducible in the requested form or format.
(h)(1) The FOIA Officer or OIG FOIA Officer, upon request for any records made in accordance with this section, shall make an initial determination of whether to comply with or deny such request and dispatch such determination to the requester within 20 business days after receipt of such request, except for unusual circumstances, as defined in § 303.2, in which case the time limit may be extended for up to 10 business days by written notice to the requester setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.
(2) If the FOIA Officer determines that a request or portion thereof is for OIG records, the FOIA Officer shall promptly refer the request or portion thereof to the OIG FOIA Officer and send notice of such action to the requester. In such case, the OIG FOIA Officer shall make an initial determination of whether to comply with or deny such request and dispatch such determination to the requester within 20 business days after receipt of such request, except for unusual circumstances, in which case the time limit may be extended for up to 10 business days by written notice to the requester setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.
(i) If a request is particularly broad or complex so that it cannot be completed within the time periods stated in paragraph (h) of this section, the Peace Corps may ask the requester to narrow the request or agree to an additional delay.
(j) When no determination can be dispatched within the applicable time limit, the FOIA Officer or the OIG FOIA Officer shall inform the requester of the reason for the delay, the date on which a determination may be expected to be dispatched, and the requester's right to treat the delay as a denial and to appeal to the Associate Director for the Office of Management or the Inspector General, in accordance with § 303.13. If no determination has been dispatched by the end of the 20-day period, or the last extension thereof, the requester may deem the request denied, and exercise a right of appeal in accordance with § 303.13. The FOIA Officer or the OIG FOIA Officer may ask the requester to forego an appeal until a determination is made.
(k) After it has been determined that a request will be granted, the responsible official will act with due diligence in providing a prompt response.
(l)(1) Requests and appeals will be taken out of order and given expedited treatment whenever the requester demonstrates a compelling need as defined in § 303.2.
(2) A request for expedited processing may be made at the time of the initial request for records or at any later time. For a prompt determination, a request for expedited processing must be properly addressed and marked and received by the Peace Corps pursuant to § 303.7(b).
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement demonstrating a compelling need, as defined in § 303.2, that is certified by the requester to be true and correct to the best of that person's knowledge and belief, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing.
(4) Within 10 business days of its receipt of a request for expedited processing, the FOIA Officer or the OIG FOIA Officer shall decide whether to grant the request and shall notify the requester of the decision. If a request for expedited treatment is granted, the request shall be given priority and shall be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision shall be acted on expeditiously.
(5) Appeals regarding expedited processing denials shall be made to the Associate Director for the Office of Management, or in the case of a denial by the OIG FOIA Officer of a request for expedited processing, the Inspector General, who shall respond within 10 business days of receipt of the appeal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) A request for expedited processing of a request for information may be made at any time and submitted to the Peace Corps FOIA Officer or to the OIG FOIA Officer in the case of a request concerning OIG records. When making a request for expedited processing of an administrative appeal, the request should be submitted to the Associate Director for the Office of Management, or in the case of an appeal concerning OIG records, the Inspector General.
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing will submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. For example, in § 303.2, paragraph (2) of the definition for compelling need, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that the requester is a person whose primary activity or occupation is information dissemination, though it need not be the requester's sole occupation. Such a requester also must establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request—one that extends beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. The existence of numerous articles published on a given subject may be helpful in establishing the requirement that there be an “urgency to inform” the public on the topic. As a matter of administrative discretion, the Peace Corps may waive the formal certification requirement.
(4) The Peace Corps will notify the requester within 10 calendar days of the receipt of a request for expedited processing of its decision whether to grant or deny expedited processing. If expedited processing is granted, the request will be given priority, placed in the processing track for expedited requests, and processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, the Peace Corps will act on any appeal of that decision expeditiously.
(a) The Peace Corps may withhold information in part or in its entirety using FOIA exemptions listed in 5 U.S.C. 552 (b), when the Initial Denial Authority (IDA) reasonably foresees that the disclosure of such information would cause harm to an interest protected by the exemption or exemptions, or if disclosure is prohibited by law. The Peace Corps will take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information. The Peace Corps may withhold a requested record from public disclosure only if the record fits within one or more of the following FOIA exemptions:
(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the Peace Corps, except that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested;
(b) The IDA may also withhold information applicable under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k) when the records are managed within a system of records; see 22 CFR part 308.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) The Peace Corps, when invoking an exclusion, should document its consultation with OIP.
(a) A denial of a written request for a record or information that complies with the requirements of § 303.7 shall be in writing and shall include, as applicable:
(1) The name and title or position of the responsible IDA;
(2) The signature of the agency's FOIA Officer, or in the case of denials of requests concerning OIG records, the signature of the Inspector General or designee;
(3) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied in denying the request;
(4) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by redactions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption;
(5) For any information denied under Exemption 3, the specific statute relied upon to deny the information along with a short description of the statute;
(6) A statement that the requester must appeal no later than 90 days after the date of the denial and along with instructions on how to appeal to the appellate authority. The instructions will include the appellate authority's duty title, the mailing address for the appeal, and instructions on how the requester can appeal electronically; as defined under § 303.13; and
(7) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the Peace Corps' FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by OGIS.
(b) [Reserved]
(a)
(b)
(2) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
(3) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the Associate Director of the Office of Management, or in the case of a denial of a request for OIG records, the Inspector General, will take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(i) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered
(ii) The Peace Corps has a reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4, but it has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure.
(2) The notice will either describe the commercial information requested or include a copy of the requested records or portions of records containing the information. In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, the Peace Corps may post or publish a notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to inform the submitters of the proposed disclosure, instead of sending individual notifications.
(c)
(1) The Peace Corps determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA, and therefore will not be disclosed;
(2) The information has been lawfully published or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than the FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 of June 23, 1987; or
(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous. In such case, the Peace Corps will give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information within a reasonable number of days prior to a specified disclosure date.
(d)
(2) If a submitter has any objections to disclosure, it should provide the Peace Corps a detailed written statement that specifies all grounds for withholding the particular information under any exemption of the FOIA. In order to rely on Exemption 4 as basis for nondisclosure, the submitter will explain why the information constitutes a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is commercially confidential.
(3) A submitter who fails to respond within the time period specified in the notice will be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. The Peace Corps is not required to consider any information received after the date of any disclosure decision. Any information provided by a submitter under this part may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
(e)
(f)
(1) A statement of the reasons why each of the submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;
(2) A description of the information to be disclosed or copies of the records as the Peace Corps intends to release them; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which will be a reasonable time after the notice.
(g)
(h)
The Peace Corps will preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Peace Corps will not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
(a)
(1) Commercial use requesters;
(2) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters; and
(3) All other requesters.
(b)
(c)
(2) The sum of direct costs as defined in § 303.2.
(3) The cost of duplication as defined in § 303.2.
(4) Whether the requester is an educational institution as defined in § 303.2. A requester in this fee category will show that the request is made in connection with his or her role at the educational institution. The Peace Corps may seek verification from the requester that the request is in furtherance of scholarly research, and the Peace Corps will advise requesters of their placement in this category.
(5) Whether the requester is a noncommercial scientific institution as defined in § 303.2. A requester in this category will show that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records are sought to further scientific research and are not for a commercial use. The Peace Corps will advise requesters of their placement in this category.
(6) Whether the requester is a representative of the news media as defined in § 303.2. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations that broadcast “news” to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate “news” and make their products available through a variety of means to the general public, including news organizations that disseminate solely on the internet. A request for records supporting the news-dissemination function of the requester will not be considered to be for a commercial use. “Freelance” journalists who demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through a news media entity will be considered as a representative of the news media. A publishing contract would provide the clearest evidence that publication is expected; however, the Peace Corps may also consider a requester's past publication record in making this determination. The Peace Corps will advise requesters of their placement in this category.
(7) The cost of the review as defined in § 303.2. Review time includes processing any record for disclosure, such as doing all that is necessary to prepare the record for disclosure, including the process of redacting the record and marking the appropriate exemptions. Review costs are properly charged even if a record ultimately is not disclosed. Review time also includes time spent both obtaining and considering any formal objection to disclosure made by a confidential commercial information submitter under § 303.14, but it does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.
(8) The cost of the time involved in the search as defined in § 303.2. Search time includes page-by-page or line-by-line identification of information within records and the reasonable efforts expended to locate and retrieve information from electronic records.
(d)
(1)
(ii) For each quarter hour spent by personnel searching for requested records, including electronic searches that do not require new programming, the fees will be charged.
(iii) The Peace Corps will charge the direct costs associated with conducting any search that requires the creation of a new computer program to locate the requested records. The Peace Corps will notify the requester of the costs associated with creating such a program, and the requester will agree to pay the associated costs before the costs may be incurred.
(iv) For requests that require the retrieval of records stored by the Peace Corps at a Federal records center operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), agencies will charge additional costs in accordance with the Transactional Billing Rate Schedule established by NARA.
(2)
(3)
(e)
(2)(i) If the Peace Corps fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits in which to respond to a request, it may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, may not charge duplication fees, except as described in (e)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
(ii) If the Peace Corps has determined that unusual circumstances as defined in § 303.2 apply and the Peace Corps provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.
(iii) If the Peace Corps has determined that unusual circumstances as defined in § 303.2 apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the Peace Corps may charge search fees, or, in the case of requesters described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, may charge duplication fees, if the following steps are taken: the Peace Corps will have provided timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA; and the Peace Corps will have discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit
(iv) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
(3) No search or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.
(4) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, the Peace Corps will provide without charge:
(i) The first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media); and
(ii) The first 2 hours of search.
(5) No fee will be charged when the total fee, after deducting the 100 free pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first 2 hours of search, is equal to or less than $25.
(f)
(2) If the Peace Corps notifies the requester that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a noncommercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester will provide the commitment or designation in writing, and will, when applicable, designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. The Peace Corps will not accept payments in installments.
(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, but the Peace Corps estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, the Peace Corps will toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. The Peace Corps will inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
(4) The Peace Corps will make available their FOIA Public Liaison or other FOIA professional to assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(2) When the Peace Corps determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will exceed $250.00, it may require that the requester make an advance payment up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request. The Peace Corps may elect to process the request prior to collecting fees when it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester with a history of prompt payment.
(3) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to the Peace Corps within 30 calendar days of the billing date, the Peace Corps may require that the requester pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and the Peace Corps may require that the requester make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee before the Peace Corps begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. Where the Peace Corps has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, it may require that the requester provide proof of identity.
(4) In cases in which the Peace Corps requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of the Peace Corps' fee determination, the request will be closed.
(k)
(l)
(2) The Peace Corps will furnish records responsive to a request without charge or at a reduced rate when it determines, based on all available information, that the factors described in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section are satisfied:
(i) Disclosure of the requested information would shed light on the operations or activities of the government. The subject of the request will concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated; and
(ii) Disclosure of the requested information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of those operations or activities. This factor is satisfied when the following criteria are met:
(A) Disclosure of the requested records will be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not be meaningfully informative if nothing new would be added to the public's understanding; and
(B) The disclosure will contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public will be considered. The Peace Corps will presume that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.
(iii) The disclosure will not be primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. To determine whether disclosure of the requested information is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Peace Corps will consider the following criteria:
(A) The Peace Corps will identify whether the requester has any commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. A commercial interest includes any commercial, trade, or profit interest. Requesters will be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration; and
(B) If there is an identified commercial interest, the Peace Corps will determine whether that is the primary interest furthered by the request. A waiver or reduction of fees is justified when the requirements of paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section are satisfied and any commercial interest is not the primary interest furthered by the request. The Peace Corps ordinarily will presume that when a news media requester has satisfied factors of paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (ii), the request is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return will not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(3) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver will be granted for those records.
(4) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the Peace Corps and should address the criteria referenced under paragraph (1) of this section. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester will pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.
(5) These fee waiver/reduction provisions are subject to appeal in the same manner as appeals from denial under § 303.13.
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(a) * * *
(1) This section sets forth the procedures to be followed in proceedings in which the Peace Corps is not a party, whenever a subpoena, order, or other demand (collectively referred to as a “demand”) of a court or other authority is issued for:
(i) The production or disclosure of any material contained in the files of the Peace Corps;
(ii) The production or disclosure of any information relating to material contained in the files of the Peace Corps;
(iii) The production or disclosure of any information or material acquired by any person while such person was an employee of the Peace Corps as a part of the performance of their official duties or because of their official status, or
(iv) The production of an employee of the Peace Corps for the deposition or an appearance as a witness in a legal action or proceeding.
(2) For purposes of this section, the term “employee of the Peace Corps” includes all officers, employees, volunteers, and trainees of the Peace Corps appointed by, or subject to the supervision, jurisdiction or, control of, the Director of the Peace Corps, including personal services contractors. Also, for purposes of this section, records of the Peace Corps do not include records of the Office of Inspector General.
(3) This section is intended to provide instructions regarding the internal operations of the Peace Corps, and is not intended, and does not and may not be relied upon, to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the Peace Corps.
(4) This section applies to:
(i) State and local court, administrative and legislative proceedings; and
(ii) Federal court and administrative proceedings.
(5) This section does not apply to:
(i) Congressional requests or subpoenas for testimony or documents; and
(ii) Employees or former employees making appearances solely in their private capacity in legal or administrative proceedings that do not
(6) Nothing in this section otherwise permits disclosure of information by the Peace Corps except as is provided by statute or other applicable law.
(b) * * *
(1) No employee or former employee of the Peace Corps shall, in response to a demand of a court or other authority set forth in paragraph (a) of this section produce any material, disclose any information, or appear in any proceeding, described in paragraph (a) of this section without the approval of the General Counsel or designee.
(2) Whenever an employee or former employee of the Peace Corps receives a demand for the production of material or the disclosure of information described in paragraph (a) of this section they shall immediately notify and provide a copy of the demand to the General Counsel or designee. The General Counsel, or designee, shall be furnished by the party causing the demand to be issued or served a written summary of the information sought, its relevance to the proceeding in connection with which it was served, and why the information sought is unavailable by any other means or from any other sources.
(3) The General Counsel, or designee, in consultation with appropriate Peace Corps officials, including the Peace Corps' FOIA Officer, or designee, and in light of the considerations listed in paragraph (d) of this section, will determine whether the person on whom the demand was served should respond to the demand.
Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Charleston Race Week in Charleston, SC, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Captain of the Port Charleston identifies the regulated area for this event in Charleston, SC. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.704 will be enforced for the regulated area listed in Item No. 2 in Table 1 to § 100.704 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 18, 2024, through April 21, 2024.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Chief Marine Science Technician Tyler M. Campbell, Sector Charleston, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.704 for the Annual Charleston Race Week event regulated area identified in Table 1 to § 100.704, Item No. 2 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 18, 2024, through April 21, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 4-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District, § 100.704, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Charleston Race Week which encompasses portions of Charleston Harbor. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.704(c), all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the regulated area, except those persons and vessels participating in the event, unless they receive permission to do so from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or designated representative. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.704(c), spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels or enter the regulated area without approval from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica (CAS Reg. No. 199876-45-4) when used as an inert ingredient (Pickering emulsion) on growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest at no more than 0.6% by weight of the pesticide formulation. Evonik Corporation, 299 Jefferson Road, Parsippany, NJ 07054 submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica, when used in accordance with the terms of this exemption.
This regulation is effective April 11, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 10, 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-2021-0321, is available 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:
This action is directed to the public in general. It may be of specific interest to persons who are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer identified under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 111, 112, 311, and 32532. The NAICS codes are provided to assist in determining interest. However, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to the authority in section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a.
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2021-0321 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 June 10, 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-2021-0321, 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
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) 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. When making a safety determination for an exemption for the requirement of a tolerance FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to consider the considerations in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) 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. . . .” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA consideration making safety determinations,
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
The toxicological database of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica is supported by data regarding surrogate synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) compounds. EPA has determined that it is appropriate to bridge SAS data to assess silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica compounds due to similarities in structure and physico-chemical properties.
Silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica exhibits low levels of acute toxicity via the oral route of exposure. It is not a skin irritant or a skin sensitizer, and it is not irritating to the eyes. Silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica is anticipated to have low dermal and inhalation toxicity based on studies on surrogate chemicals.
The repeated-dose toxicity for silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica is low. No adverse effects were observed in a 90-day oral rat study or in a developmental toxicity study in rats up to the limit dose.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
The available toxicity studies indicate that silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica has low overall toxicity following acute and repeated dosing. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic or developmental toxicity studies. Furthermore, concern for carcinogenicity is low, based on negative results in mutagenicity studies, and the lack of adverse effects in a chronic study with an SAS surrogate. Therefore, based on the low toxicity of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica, no endpoint of concern was identified for oral, dermal or inhalation exposure assessments, and a quantitative risk assessment is not necessary.
1.
Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica may occur following ingestion of foods with residues from their use in accordance with this exemption. However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
2.
Silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica may be present in pesticide and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. However, a quantitative residential exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
3.
Based on the lack of toxicity in the available database, EPA has not found silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-,
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
Based on an assessment of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects associated with silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica, EPA conducted a qualitative assessment. As part of that assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.
Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, 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 silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica residues.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica (CAS Reg. No. 199876-45-4) in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica that may be used in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with silica (CAS Reg. No. 199876-45-4) when used as an inert ingredient (Pickering emulsion) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 at no more than 0.6% by weight of the pesticide formulation.
This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of 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 exemptions 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
Pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopts the
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Logan Bennett, Attorney Advisor, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7790 or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's
The Commission initially adopted the DIRS system as a disaster response information tool in 2007, but we have not revisited the voluntary nature of the system in almost two decades even as the disaster and emergency landscape continues to change and technology continues to advance. By way of example, since DIRS was adopted on a voluntary basis, the Commission has adopted rules pursuant to the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act to implement Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs), creating a valuable tool used by emergency response officials to leverage mobile communications networks to provide timely alerts to consumers in disaster situations.
As such, while a voluntary system like DIRS is beneficial, we believe in the current regulatory, technological and interconnected network environment it cannot work to its fullest potential unless we expand the aperture of who reports in the system, and enhance the fidelity of the data to allow for more effective decision making in response to disaster environments by requiring filings be made in emergency contexts. As the Commission evaluates the best approaches to support better outcomes for consumers in these challenging situations in the
The
• require cable communications, wireline, wireless, and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers (
• codify, in part 4 of the Commission's outage reporting rules, the current practice that a subject provider's NORS reporting obligations are waived while they report in DIRS [This exemption is codified as a revision to the Commission's part 4 rules stating that NORS reporting requirements do not apply when the Commission requires DIRS reporting.
• require that subject providers who report in DIRS provide a single, final DIRS report to the Commission, within 24 hours of the Commission's deactivation of DIRS, that provides the status of their infrastructure identified to the Commission during the DIRS reporting period that has not yet been fully restored at the time of the deactivation.
In the
DIRS provides pertinent daily information that the Commission provides to a variety of public safety entities through information sharing, collaborative disaster response efforts, and to the public. The information in DIRS reports also enables the Bureau's Operations and Emergency Management Division (OEM) to manage its disaster response activities, such as visiting sites and validating communications restoration status, supporting vital search and rescue operations, and performing eyes-on assessments of disaster impacts and damages to prioritize and allocate response and recovery resources. At their core, DIRS reports, in combination with operational spectrum surveys and other direct engagement, serve as an impetus for open lines of communication between communications carriers and emergency management officials.
In response to the
Conversely, several parties representing industry, like ACA Connects—America's Communications Association (ACA), oppose mandating DIRS on grounds that it would be too burdensome or would only provide a limited benefit when it comes to requiring compliance from small providers. NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) believes that small operators will likely lack the personnel, time, or physical resources to make such reports in the midst of a disaster and states that DIRS reports may not actually be useful in disaster scenarios because the Department of Homeland Security's National Coordinating Center for Communications (DHS-NCC) and the Communications Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Comms-ISAC) provide a forum for industry stakeholders “to share real-time information and collaborate with government partners on network restoration efforts [so] [a]ny new information sharing commitments would likely duplicate, and potentially conflict with, these established, well-defined processes, creating unnecessary burden and undermining rather than strengthening network resiliency.” AT&T argues that, to manage burdens, mandatory reporting should be based on a “best efforts” standard and that there should be no penalty for failure to meet any deadlines established for particular events. NTCA also argues, “it is currently unclear whether filing the [DIRS] reports lead to greater coordination between government and industry or offers a benefit to a company or community in crisis.”
We find that mandatory DIRS reporting will yield substantial public safety benefits. DIRS provides situational awareness of communications operational status and actionable information to public safety entities assisting in disaster response, thus promoting public safety. Additionally, the Commission's information sharing program provides direct read-only access to government agencies, providing a direct benefit to emergency response, and providing complete and accurate information to these sharing partners will provide actionable data to those making decisions in disaster and reliability contexts. DIRS exists “to report communications infrastructure status and situational awareness information during times of crises” and enables “the Commission [to] disseminate DIRS information to other Federal agencies” to “facilitate Federal restoration efforts,” as well as efforts from state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and get boots on the ground in the locations requiring urgent assistance. Public Knowledge asserts that “[t]he FCC must require all wireless . . . providers to perform basic measures that reflect the lessons it has gleaned from recent post-disaster reports [as] [i]n these reports, the FCC has outlined straight-forward and obvious procedures that, if performed, would undoubtedly improve disaster responses.” However, in its current voluntary state, DIRS provides the Commission with an incomplete picture of infrastructure status and other important emergency information and cannot reliably be used to determine whether entities are merely not reporting by choice or if they have lost the ability to report and are in need of aid and collaboration. Mandating DIRS reporting provides a more consistent picture of status during and after disasters and emergencies since there is a wider sampling of providers recording how an event has affected their infrastructure and capabilities. Requiring DIRS reporting will identify clearly for the Commission and other emergency response agencies of any possible issues and signals for needed aid and assistance and will make apparent when a provider does not or cannot report that there is an issue with their system or reporting capabilities. APCO International agrees that “improving the information in these important systems will be helpful for situational awareness and ongoing efforts to improve network resiliency.” Public Knowledge stresses the importance of “better, timelier, and more detailed outage and service-quality reporting to ensure accountability [and] . . . needs to make this data available to the public in a way that balances the twin imperatives of transparency and information security.” We agree that mandating reporting in DIRS will improve situational awareness through daily status updates during emergencies and serve the public interest by providing vital information regarding the operational status of communications networks the Commission and emergency response entities need to effectively manage communications needs during and after disasters occur.
Mandating DIRS is especially important in today's disaster climate as the quantity of disasters has increased since DIRS was first formulated. 2023 was recorded as the worst year on record for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, passing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) prior record of 22 events in 2020 within the first eight months of 2023. DIRS data associated with an impacted area is of particular importance, since it provides a preliminary understanding of both the impact and scope of damages, enables the optimization of the allocation, prioritization, and deployment of response and restoration personnel and resources. Further, the analysis of DIRS data enables the identification of reliability trends and challenges associated with infrastructure in rural, underserved, and underprivileged communities. In addition, given the rise in the utilization of communications infrastructure by emergency response officials as a tool for alerting both through WEA and through more established Emergency Alert System (EAS) channels, as well as the advent of Next-Generation 911 and text-to-911, the need for relevant and comprehensive information related to the availability of the infrastructure for communication from and with the public provides added urgency for the reformation of our information collection efforts in the DIRS context in particular.
While commenters argue that reporting in this context is a burden particularly for small entities, we disagree with those who surmise that mandating participation in DIRS will be
We also disagree with NTCA's contention that DIRS reports may not be useful because there are other avenues, including through the work of the DHS-NCC, for emergency managers and first responders to obtain real-time situational awareness information. NCTA's similar argument that mandating DIRS filings is not warranted because it does not result in active participation by stakeholders at the state and local level is also unpersuasive. First, the systematic, mandatory collection of information in DIRS would not overlap with other Federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial government efforts, and this non-duplicative information would be made available in real-time to both DHS and other participating public safety entities pursuant to the Commission's information sharing rules to further enhance their efforts (The mandated collection of information associated with DIRS would be non-duplicative and lacking in overlap with state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments as the information they receive comes from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Emergency Support Function #2 (ESF-2) and/or its state public utility system. Local response officials would be lacking this information unless a state or local entity has a relationship with a specific carrier, which is not common.). Such information could also be available to local entities through permitted downstream sharing (The Commission's rules allow Participating Agencies to share NORS and DIRS information with first responders, emergency communications centers, and other local government agencies who play a vital public safety role during crises and have a need to know this information (Downstream Agencies).), and is shared with the public on an aggregated basis via communications status reports published daily by the Commission when DIRS is activated, providing valuable public information on available avenues for communications during emergencies. Additionally, mandating reporting in DIRS for all subject providers would ensure full participation of service providers in each affected area and therefore present the Commission and other entities with a comprehensive insight as to infrastructure status and reporting capabilities of such entities through regular updates. The contentions of NTCA and NCTA are contradicted by a significant factual record identified in the
We also reject the assertions of ACA Connects and NTCA that the burden for small providers with limited resources is too substantial to justify mandatory reporting, particularly in the midst of the need to effectuate repairs. Small providers, including many recipients of Universal Service Funds (USF), are often a crucial link for alerting and 911 in rural and underserved communities. The lack of visibility into the operational status of these networks when disaster response officials are performing vital tasks like determining how to effectuate outreach to communities that may involve evacuation instructions, shelter in place, or other emergency directives does a significant disservice to these populations, and may place them at increased risk. While timely restoration is crucially important, the minimal time and burden associated with notifying the Commission of infrastructure status is necessary to ensure timely emergency response activity. Moreover, we clarify that submissions made in DIRS under the rule adopted in the
It has been sixteen years since the Commission launched DIRS, and the time is ripe to take steps to improve the efficacy of the system. While the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) argues that nothing has changed since the Commission's 2007 determination that a voluntary process for DIRS reporting proved adaptable to the unique circumstances of various crises, we disagree. The state of natural disasters, frequencies of emergencies, and the emergence of advanced technology has changed remarkably over the last almost two decades. The evolution of alerting through the advent of WEA, the associated implementation of FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) gateway for the dissemination of WEAs and EAS alerts, as well as the launch of the Commission's own information sharing program for NORS and DIRS have altered the regulatory landscape as well. NAB's position similarly fails to consider the results of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report noting a sharp increase in the number of wireless outages attributed to a physical incidents, and its recommendation that the Commission improve its monitoring of industry
DIRS also provides important information regarding which and how many Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are unable to receive incoming emergency information from consumers in need. In regard to PSAPs, while NORS and DIRS serve similar purposes (reporting network outages), they collect different types of data. PSAP impact data is specifically collected by DIRS and not NORS. Once DIRS is activated, the Commission gets more fidelity as to PSAP status that it would not ordinarily get if only NORS were utilized, as no PSAP-specific information is collected in NORS at all. DIRS further provides information such as how many cell sites have been affected, where damaged power infrastructure is impacting communications, and other status information. Rather than waiting for the next emergency—be it natural or man-made—to strike and remind us, again, of the importance of comprehensive situational awareness to ensure the public safety and expedite the restoration of communications, we are relying on our experience and the record before us to adopt mandatory DIRS requirements now.
In considering the scope of reporting entities, we limit our determination at this time to cable communications, wireless, wireline, and interconnected VoIP providers. In this respect, we find that the record supports adoption of mandatory DIRS reporting for these providers because this group of providers should already have information like points of contact, roaming agreements, coordination and response plans, and restoration plans of action in place due to the general course of business. This was echoed in the record by Public Knowledge. Wireless providers especially should already have these ideals for resiliency and restoration in place given the 2016 Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework that has recently been mandated as the MDRI, which requires wireless providers to establish and share with the Commission (upon request) elements like roaming arrangements and mutual aid agreements. However, we note the concerns raised by satellite (DBS and SDARS) and broadcast (television and radio) providers seeking to differentiate their services in terms of impact to their specific technology in disaster contexts, operational restrictions, and the types of information that is likely relevant for disaster response relative to these particular services that may impact the specific data needs to be collected from these entities. For example, certain types of technology, like satellite, may have limited terrestrial components impacted by a disaster such that a more nuanced approach for outage reporting may be appropriate. In this respect, we also note that these services, while crucial to distribute information during disasters, may not serve the same function as the other services for which we require DIRS reporting today—namely, the use by consumers to seek help by communicating with emergency responders and loved ones. The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) requests more detail regarding proposals for mandatory DIRS reporting for that sector, and NAB raises arguments about the burdens of reporting, especially for smaller broadcasters who experience disruptions in the services they provide as well as underlying telephone, internet, or power services on which broadcasters rely to provide service. Further, these emergencies and “disasters often lead to power outages and the loss of telephone and internet access, making it difficult if not impossible for smaller stations without a corporate support infrastructure to file a DIRS report.” To build a more complete record about the impact of our proposals on the satellite and broadcast sectors, we seek further comment pertaining to satellite and broadcast, as well as broadband, providers whose comments share different concerns and views than the subject providers included under the
By mandating DIRS reporting for subject providers, we expect that there will be an increase in both the volume and clarity of situational awareness information collected, and the Commission will be able to share this information with Federal, state, Tribal, and territorial partners. Additional DIRS information will be helpful during disaster events and can help improve public safety planning and response efforts. DIRS provides decision-making public safety officials and emergency managers with an invaluable tool for assessing where communications services and infrastructure are impacted by disasters, as well as insights into the speed and scope of communications restoration. Particularly, DIRS information is a key performance indicator and serves as a primary input to the FEMA Lifelines report and Senior Leaders Interagency Briefings, which enables decision makers to concentrate their personnel and resources on areas presumed to have been impacted the hardest. Requiring this information to be reported by subject providers will assist with general situational awareness, the deployment of disaster and recovery logistics, and applications of infrastructure grants and insurance claims.
In the
USTelecom—The Broadband Association (USTelecom), NCTA, and AT&T support this proposal expressly, and no commenters oppose it. Accordingly, we conclude that formally codifying this practice would give providers more clarity on their obligations and both streamline and formalize existing practices with no detrimental impact on the Commission's current public safety efforts. Because of the long and successful practice of granting waivers, the Bureau and the industry should easily transition to this permanent solution. Moreover, the codification of this practice will be beneficial for subject providers as this waiver will reduce burdens for DIRS filers during emergency conditions when the system is activated. As proposed, this shift between reporting mechanisms also mitigates the burden of potentially duplicative reporting for subject providers by only requiring reporting in one system during and after disasters instead of a dual requirement. This will also provide administrative efficiency by eliminating the need for the Bureau to determine and issue waivers on an activation-by-activation basis.
In the
Under the Commission's current rules, there may be instances in which DIRS is deactivated but some providers have not yet fully restored service. In these instances, the Commission no longer has situational awareness as to the status of those subject providers' services because updates are no longer being filed in DIRS and the outage would have never been filed in NORS (as the Commission typically suspends NORS reporting obligations for subject providers who elect to report in DIRS, and we adopt that practice in the
We find that a final deactivation report, filed in DIRS within 24 hours of the Commission deactivating DIRS, will close a significant gap that currently occurs at the conclusion of the DIRS reporting period, and therefore adopt such a reporting requirement. Bridging this informational divide will also enable Commission staff to conduct follow-up inquiries on an as-needed basis based on the information gathered, increase provider accountability, and provide needed opportunities for analysis associated with recovery. While this minor additional filing to close out issues presented though the course of a DIRS activation is only a minimal burden, we find the minor burden outweighed by the anticipated benefits and efficiencies associated with more directed staff engagement with incident resolution. We also find that this close-out report obviates the need for any additional filings in NORS as related to the same outage and clarify that once an outage is filed in DIRS, the event need not be filed in NORS.
We also agree with AT&T that it would be most effective for providers to supply a final report in DIRS since the report relates to a provider's previous filings in DIRS. Moreover, filing such reports in DIRS will promote efficiency and reduce confusion, both for those who file reports and for those who review them. This would include subject providers, participating entities who take part in the Commission's NORS and DIRS information sharing program, and Commission staff. Final reports will promote clarity by continuing to associate such reports with the initiating incident in the same system.
While the
In the
We are cognizant of the fact that, as a general matter, it is impossible to assign precise dollar values to the improvement in public safety, life and health resulting from changes to the DIRS reporting requirements. Nevertheless, we believe that these proposals will result in benefits in terms of lives saved and injuries and property damages prevented. Expanded reporting will improve situational awareness of outages during disasters and aid in emergency response and recovery coordination. Improved information on outages makes communications options clearer for the individual responding in disasters. Improved data on outages can also help the government hold providers accountable for failures to timely respond to outages. Data collected can help with future disasters through improved planning for support and mitigation strategies. According to NOAA, natural disasters have caused annually in excess of $118 billion in economic damages and 564 deaths for the last 10 years. We believe that the mandatory DIRS filing obligation will result in a reduction of these harms to a degree that results in a significant social and public safety benefit.
In considering the costs associated with a mandatory DIRS filing obligation, we expect that subject providers will enter emergency contact information and critical information as necessary (
While it would be impossible to quantify the precise financial value of these health and safety benefits, we believe that the value of these benefits will significantly outweigh the annual cost of $1.6 million. In light of the record reflecting large benefits to communications providers, agencies, and other industry stakeholders, we find that the total incremental costs imposed on the nation's subject providers by these new requirements will be minimal in many instances and, even when significant, will be far outweighed by the nationwide benefits. While DIRS provides vital information pertaining to infrastructure status, it can only be beneficial if as many providers as possible participate in reporting. This level of participation has yet to be achieved in a voluntary reporting state, causing the need to transition to mandatory reporting.
We set a single date for compliance by all subject providers for implementing these rules at the later of 30 days after the FCC publishes notice in the
We also find that subject providers will require only a modest amount of time to adjust their processes to comply with these rules because, as noted above, many subject providers already voluntarily report in DIRS or have similar reporting or recording practices for disasters in place. We believe that the compliance timing provided grants sufficient time for subject providers, including small entities, to implement any changes to their reporting methods and work with Bureau staff to resolve any concerns about the DIRS reporting process.
Once the compliance date has been established, we will require that cable communications, wireless, wireline, and interconnected VoIP subject providers report their infrastructure status information in DIRS whenever the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas where such entities provide service. To resolve previous ambiguity as to whether a subject provider was failing to report because (1) its network infrastructure remained fully operational; (2) the entity was unable to file; or (3) the entity cannot access DIRS due to disruption of its internet access or other exigencies, the Commission requires entities to file reports on a daily basis until the Commission has deactivated DIRS. In this respect, non-filing due to such circumstances will be examined on a case-by-case basis. In those instances where extraordinary circumstances prevent filing due to operational limitations, providers should: (1) use the Operations Center or otherwise notify the Commission if they are unable to file; and (2) make a filing as soon as they are capable, but no later than the final report due upon deactivation of DIRS.
Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 part 4 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 34-39, 151, 154, 155, 157, 201, 251, 307, 316, 615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b); 5 U.S.C. 301, and Executive Order no. 10530.
(a) Cable Communications, Wireline, Wireless, and Interconnected VoIP providers shall be required to report their infrastructure status information each day in the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) when the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas in which they provide service, even when their reportable infrastructure has not changed compared to the prior day. Cable Communications, Wireless, Wireline and Interconnected VoIP providers are subject to mandated reporting in DIRS and shall:
(1) Provide daily reports on their infrastructure status from the start of DIRS activation until DIRS has been deactivated.
(2) Provide a single, final report to the Commission within 24 hours of the Commission's deactivation of DIRS and the termination of required daily reporting, detailing the state of their infrastructure at the time of DIRS deactivation and an estimated date of resolution of any remaining outages.
(b) Cable Communications, Wireline, Wireless, and Interconnected VoIP providers who provide a DIRS report pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section are not required to make submissions in the Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) under this chapter pertaining to any incidents arising during the DIRS activation and that are timely reported in DIRS. Subject providers shall be notified that DIRS is activated and deactivated pursuant to Public Notice from the Commission and/or the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
(c) This section may contain information collection and/or recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with this section will not be required until this paragraph (c) is removed or contains compliance dates.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notification of referendum.
Notice is hereby given of a referendum to be conducted among eligible producers and importers of pecans to determine whether they favor continuance of the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) regulations regarding a national pecan research and promotion program.
This referendum will be conducted by mail and electronic ballot from May 10, 2024, through June 10, 2024. Ballots delivered to AMS via mail or electronic ballot must show proof of delivery by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on June 10, 2024, to be counted.
Copies of the Pecan Promotion, Research, and Information Order may be obtained from: Referendum Agents, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244, Telephone: (202) 720-8085 or contact Matthew Collins at (972) 210-9109 or via Email:
Matthew Collins, Marketing Specialist, Market Development Division, SCP, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244, Matthew Collins (972) 210-9109 or via Email:
Pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (Act), it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the Pecan Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) (7 CFR part 1223) is favored by eligible producers and importers of pecans covered under the program. The Order is authorized under the Act. The Order is administered by the American Pecan Promotion Board (Board) with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for the referendum shall be the period from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023. Persons who are producers or importers who have produced or imported 50,000 pounds of inshell pecans (25,000 pounds of shelled pecans) during the representative period are eligible to vote in the referendum. Persons who received an exemption from assessments pursuant to § 1223.53 for the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. AMS will provide the option for electronic balloting. The referendum will be conducted by mail and electronic ballot from May 10 through June 10, 2024. Further details will be provided in the ballot instructions.
Section 518 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 7417) authorizes required referenda. Under § 1223.71(a)(1) of the Order, the USDA must conduct a referendum not later than three years after assessments first begin. The program became effective on February 12, 2021, with the collection of assessments, as required by §§ 1223.52 and 1223.53, and compliance with reporting and recordkeeping requirements under §§ 1223.60 and 1223.61, beginning on October 1, 2021. USDA would continue the Order, if continuance is favored by a majority of producers and importers voting in the referendum, and who, during the representative time period engaged in the production or importation of pecans.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0328. It is estimated that approximately 725 entities will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting instructions and complete the referendum ballot.
Matthew Collins, Marketing Specialist; Katie Cook, Marketing Specialist; and Alexandra Caryl, Branch Chief, Market Development Division, SCP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents to conduct this referendum. The referendum procedures at 7 CFR 1223.100 through 1223.107, which were issued pursuant to the Act, shall be used to conduct the referendum.
The referendum agents will mail or provide electronically the ballots to be cast in the referendum and voting instructions to all known, eligible producers and importers prior to the first day of the voting period. Any eligible producers or importers who do not receive a ballot should contact a referendum agent no later than three days before the end of the voting period. Ballots delivered via mail or electronic ballot must show proof of delivery by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on June 10, 2024, to be counted.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Pecan promotion, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. If finalized, this action would make permanent the existing regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possess), or propose to handle these three specific controlled substances.
Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before May 13, 2024.
Interested persons may file a request for a hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.47 and/or 1316.49, as applicable. Requests for a hearing, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing, must be received on or before May 13, 2024.
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). The electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-900N” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
•
Dr. Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
In this proposed rule, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposes to permanently schedule the following three controlled substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation:
• butonitazene (2-(2-(4-butoxybenzyl)-5-nitro-1
• flunitazene (
• metodesnitazene (
All comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. DEA will make comments available for public inspection online at
Commenters submitting comments which include personal identifying information (PII), confidential, or proprietary business information that the commenter does not want made publicly available should submit two copies of the comment. One copy must be marked “CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” and should clearly identify all PII or business information the commenter does not want to be made publicly available, including any supplemental materials. DEA will review this copy, including the claimed PII and confidential business information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy should be marked “TO BE PUBLICLY POSTED” and must have all claimed confidential PII and business information already redacted. DEA will post only the redacted comment on
For easy reference, an electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed scheduling action are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the
(1) state with particularity the interest of the person in the proceeding;
(2) state with particularity the objections or issues concerning which the person desires to be heard; and
(3) state briefly the position of the person with regarding to the objections or issues.
Any interested person may file a waiver of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c), together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.
All requests for a hearing and waivers of participation, together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in such hearing, must be sent to DEA using the address information provided above. The decision whether a hearing will be needed to address such matters of fact and law in the rulemaking will be made by the Administrator. If a hearing is needed, DEA will publish a notice of hearing on the proposed rulemaking in the
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 and 812, the purpose of a hearing would be to determine whether butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene meet the statutory criteria for placement in schedule I, as proposed in this rule.
The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (delegated to the Administrator of DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) on his own motion, at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), or on the petition of any interested party.
On April 12, 2022, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), DEA published an order in the
As described in the temporary order published on April 12, 2022, butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene belong to the class of substances known as benzimidazole-opioids and are synthetic opioids. The Assistant Secretary for HHS has advised DEA that there are no exemptions or approvals in effect for butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 335. According to HHS, and also by DEA's findings in this proposed rule, butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have no known accepted medical use. These substances are not the subject of any approved new drug application (NDA) or investigational new drug application (IND), and are not currently marketed as approved drug products.
The Administrator, on her own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), is initiating proceedings to permanently schedule butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene. DEA gathered the necessary data and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these substances. On July 13, 2022, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b), the Administrator then submitted a request to the Assistant Secretary to provide DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for six benzimidazole substances.
On November 15, 2023, the Assistant Secretary submitted HHS's scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for butonitazene, flunitazene, metodesnitazene, and three other benzimidazole-opioids and their salts to the Administrator,
As discussed in the background section, the Administrator is initiating proceedings, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), to permanently add butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene to schedule I. DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation received from HHS, and all other relevant data, and it conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of these three
In addition to considering the information HHS provided in its scientific and medical evaluation document for butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene, DEA also considered all other relevant data regarding actual or relative potential for abuse of these three substances. The term “abuse” is not defined in the CSA; however, the legislative history of the CSA suggests that DEA consider the following criteria when determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse:
Both DEA and HHS eight-factor analyses found that butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have pharmacological profiles similar to those of the synthetic opioids etonitazene and isotonitazene, which are both schedule I controlled substances and have high potential for abuse. According to HHS, butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have no approved medical uses in the United States, and they have been encountered on the illicit drug market with adverse outcomes on the public health and safety. Because there are no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved or FDA-exempted products for butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene in the United States or in any other country, a practitioner may not legally prescribe them, and they cannot be dispensed to an individual. However, these benzimidazole-opioids substances are available for purchase from legitimate chemical companies because they can be used in scientific research. There is no known diversion from research activities for these substances.
Because butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene are not formulated or available for clinical use as approved medicinal products, it is inferred that all current use of these substances by individuals are based on their own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs. According to drug seizure data from 2020 and 2023 from the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS-Drug)
According to DEA and HHS, the pharmacological activity of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene in humans is unknown. Preclinical studies show that these benzimidazole-opioids exhibit a pharmacological profile similar to that of morphine and fentanyl. As explained in detail in both DEA and HHS eight-factor analyses, data from binding studies show that these substances, similar to morphine and fentanyl, selectively bound to mu-opioid receptors.
Additionally, behavioral effects of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene were assessed using the drug discrimination model. Drug discrimination studies can be used to determine whether a test drug produces pharmacological effects (
Butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene belong to the 2-benzylbenzimidazole structural class. The chemical structures of these 2-benzylbenzimidazoles contain a benzimidazole ring and a benzyl group at the benzimidazole 2-position. These benzimidazole-opioids are structurally related to several schedule I substances, including etonitazene. There are no FDA-approved marketing applications for drug products containing butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene for any therapeutic indication in the United States or medical use in any other country. Further, there are no well-controlled clinical studies that have demonstrated the safety or efficacy for these substances. According to HHS, FDA concluded that butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have no currently accepted medical use in the United States. Similarly, DEA concludes that butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have no currently accepted medical use according to established DEA procedure and case law.
In the late 1950s, the Swiss chemical company CIBA Aktiengesellschaft synthesized a group of benzimidazole derivatives with analgesic properties;
According to HHS, there are no FDA-approved drug products for butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene in the United States.
Butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene, similar to schedule I substances, such as etonitazene and isotonitazene, are synthetic opioids, and evidence suggests they are abused for their opioidergic effects. The abuse of these benzimidazole-opioids, similar to other synthetic opioids, has resulted in their identification in toxicology, post-mortem cases, and law enforcement encounters. Data from the toxicology analysis showed that butonitazene has been positively identified in three postmortem cases, flunitazene in four post mortem cases,
Data from law enforcement suggest that butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene are being abused in the United States as recreational drugs. The law enforcement encounters of these benzimidazole-opioids, as reported to NFLIS-Drug, included 130 exhibits since 2020. NFLIS-Drug registered 66 encounters of butonitazene from 7 states, 60 encounters of flunitazene from 11 states, and 4 encounters of metodesnitazene from 3 states. Of the 66 reports involving butonitazene, fentanyl was co-identified in 24 cases. Flunitazene was commonly co-identified with metonitazene (n = 30) in fifty percent of the cases. Metodesnitazene was co-reported with diphenhydramine (n = 2), fentanyl (n = 2), and heroin (n = 2).
The identification of these benzimidazole-opioids in forensic and toxicology cases suggests they may be presented as a substitute for heroin or fentanyl and likely abused in the same manner as either of those substances. The population likely to be harmed by these benzimidazole-opioids appears to be the same as that harmed by other opioid substances, such as heroin, tramadol, fentanyl, and other synthetic opioid substances. This is evidenced by the types of other drugs co-identified in biological samples and law enforcement encounters. Law enforcement and toxicology reports demonstrate that butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene are being abused, and that their use can produce serious adverse events that can lead to death. Because users of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene are likely to obtain these substances through unregulated sources, the identity, purity, and quantity of these substances are uncertain and likely to be inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to the end user. Individuals who initiate use of one or more of these benzimidazole-opioids are likely to be at risk of developing a substance use disorder, fatal or non-fatal
The increase in opioid overdose deaths in the United States has been exacerbated recently by the availability of potent synthetic opioids on the illicit drug market. It is well established that substances that act as mu-opioid receptor agonists have a high potential for abuse and addiction and can induce dose-dependent respiratory depression. As with any mu-opioid receptor agonist, the potential health and safety risks for users of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene are high. Consistently, these three benzimidazole-opioids have been positively identified in toxicology cases. The public health risks associated with the abuse of mu-opioid receptor agonists are well established.
The introduction of synthetic opioids, such as butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene, into the illicit drug market may serve as a portal to problematic opioid use for those seeking these opioids. Evidence from toxicology reports show that poly-substance abuse remains common in fatalities associated with the abuse of some of these benzimidazole-opioids.
Butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have pharmacological effects similar to those of schedule I benzimidazole-opioids such as clonitazene, etonitazene, and isotonitazene. According to HHS, analgesic studies conducted on these benzimidazole-opioids show that they produce effects similar to that of either morphine or fentanyl, both schedule II narcotic drugs. Although there are no clinical studies that have evaluated the dependence potential of these substances, they are mu-opioid receptor agonists, and it is well known that the discontinuation of the use of mu-opioid receptor agonists, such as fentanyl and morphine, causes withdrawal symptoms indicative of physical dependence. The similarities in the pharmacological profile and pattern of abuse of these benzimidazole-opioids, heroin, and fentanyl are indicative of their similar potential to have psychic and physiological dependence liability.
Butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene are not immediate precursors of a substance controlled under the CSA, as defined by 21 U.S.C. 802(23).
After considering the scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying scheduling recommendation of HHS, and DEA's own eight-factor analysis, DEA finds that these facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene. As such, DEA proposes to permanently schedule these three benzimidazole-opioids as schedule I controlled substances under the CSA.
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule.
(1) Butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have a high potential for abuse. Butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene, similar to etonitazene and fentanyl, are mu-opioid receptor agonists. These three benzimidazole-opioids have analgesic effects and these effects are mediated by mu-opioid receptor agonism. HHS states that substances that produce mu-opioid receptor agonist effects in the central nervous system are considered as having a high potential for abuse (
(2) Butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have no currently accepted medical use in the United States. There are no FDA-approved drug products for butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene in the United States. There are no known therapeutic applications for these benzimidazole-opioids and DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for these substances in the United States.
(3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene under medical supervision. Because these substances have no FDA-approved medical use and have not been investigated as new drugs, their safety for use under medical supervision is not determined.
Based on these findings, the Administrator of DEA concludes that butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation, warrant continued control in schedule I of the CSA.
As discussed above, these three substances are currently subject to a temporary scheduling order, which added them to schedule I. If this rule is finalized as proposed, butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene would be subject, on a permanent basis, to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, dispensing, importation, exportation, engagement in research, and conduct of instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of schedule I substances, including the following:
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene) on hand every two years pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563. E.O. 14094 modernizes the regulatory review process to advance policies that promote the public interest and address national priorities.
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
On April 12, 2022, DEA published an order to temporarily place seven benzimidazole-opioids in schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene have already established and implemented systems and processes required to handle these substances.
There are currently 45 registrations authorized to specifically handle butonitazene, flunitazene, or metodesnitazene, as well as 1,239 registered analytical labs and 861 researchers that are authorized to handle schedule I controlled substances generally. These 45 registrations represent 31 entities. A review of the 45 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle butonitazene, flunitazene, and metodesnitazene also handle other schedule I controlled substances and have established and implemented (or maintained) systems and processes required to handle these substances. Therefore, DEA anticipates this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities; and thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any affected small entity. Therefore, DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This proposed rule would not impose a new collection or modify an existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 5, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set out above, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
The additions to read as follows:
(b) * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.
This document corrects a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100908-23) published in the
Written or electronic comments were to be received by October 30, 2023.
Commenters were strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically.
Concerning the proposed regulations, the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries) at (202) 317-6853 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments or the public hearing, Vivian Hayes, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free number) or by email to
The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100908-23) that is the subject of this correction is under sections 30C, 45, 45L, 45Q, 45U, 45V, 45Y, 45Z, 48C, 48E, and 179D of the Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100980-23) contains an error that needs to be corrected.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100908-23) that is the subject of FR Doc. 2023-18514, published on August 30, 2023, is corrected on page 60018, in the first column, by correcting the fifth line of the heading to read “1545-BQ62”.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On December 26, 2023, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) relating to the credit for production of clean hydrogen and the election to treat clean hydrogen production facilities as energy property, as established and amended by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, respectively. The NPRM referred to the collection of information associated with the process for taxpayers to request an emissions value from the Department of Energy (DOE) to petition the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate (Secretary) for a provisional emissions rate (PER). This document invites comments on the information collection related to that process.
Written comments must be received by May 13, 2024.
Written comments to OIRA for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this document's publication at
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.
A copy of the information collection request is available through the docket on the internet at
In addition to the submission of comments to
For questions concerning this document, the Office of Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries) at (202) 317-6853 (not a toll-free number). For questions concerning the submission of comments regarding the emissions value request process, Karen Dandridge at (202) 586-3388 or by email (preferred) at
Section 13204 of Public Law 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818 (August 16, 2022), commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), added new sections 45V and 48(a)(15) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to provide a credit for the production of, and investment in, clean hydrogen. On December 26, 2023, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
The NPRM references the DOE's process for applicants to request an emissions value from the DOE that could then be used to file a petition with the Secretary for determination of a PER as detailed in proposed § 1.45V-4. The petition to the Secretary will be made by attaching a copy of the letter from the DOE stating the emissions value to Form 7210,
The public comment period for the NPRM closed on February 26, 2024, and a public hearing was held on March 24, 25, and 26, 2024. The public comments received are being considered. This document opens a 30-day period for comments on the DOE's emissions value request process. Comments received in response to this document must pertain to that process. Comments outside the scope of this document will not be considered.
This document supplements the guidance provided in the NPRM to specify the DOE's emissions value request process.
The Treasury Department and the IRS proposed that, to obtain an emissions value from the DOE based on the DOE's analytical assessment of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with a hydrogen production facility's production pathway, in addition to meeting the requirements set forth in the NPRM, an applicant must first complete a front-end engineering and design (FEED) study or similar indicia of project maturity, as determined by the DOE, and then request an emissions value from the DOE. The term “emissions value” means the DOE's analytical assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions rate of a hydrogen production facility's hydrogen production process.
The NPRM provided that applicants may only request an emissions value after having completed a FEED study or similar indicia of project maturity, as determined by the DOE, such as project specification and cost estimate sufficient to inform a final investment decision. The DOE has determined that, at this time, a FEED study completed based on an Association for Advanced Cost Engineering Class 3 Cost Estimate is necessary to sufficiently indicate commercial project maturity for robust emissions analysis. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to seek comments on whether alternative appropriate pathways to demonstrating project readiness exist. Comments received in response to the NPRM and this document will be considered and these requirements may be revised accordingly.
In order to request an emissions value from the DOE for a given hydrogen facility, applicants must submit the following information to the DOE: (1) specific sections of the FEED study, as described in the DOE's emissions value request process instructions (Instructions); and (2) a completed Emissions Value Request Form, as described in the Instructions. Additionally, the Emissions Value Request Application may contain any additional information that may be beneficial to the DOE in completing a lifecycle GHG analysis of the hydrogen production pathway for which the applicant is requesting an emissions value. Such additional information would be optional, and the applicant's
In order to file an Emissions Value Request Application, applicants would first be required to send an email to the DOE at
Additional information about the emissions value request process will be available at:
Comments are requested on the DOE's Emissions Value Request Application process, including (1) whether additional procedures should be implemented to effectuate the Emissions Value Request Application process; (2) information to be collected and whether additional information should be considered by the DOE in evaluating an Emissions Value Request Application; and (3) any other aspects of the emissions value request process.
Once approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the DOE OMB Control Number 1910-NEW, notice will be given in the
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, Review of Treasury Regulations under Executive Order 12866 (June 9, 2023), tax regulatory actions issued by the IRS are not subject to the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) generally requires that a Federal agency obtain the approval of OMB before collecting information from the public, whether such collection of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit. A Federal 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 control number.
The collection of information described in this document would include reporting and third-party disclosure requirements. This collection is necessary for certain hydrogen producers to obtain an emissions value which they may use to claim the section 45V credit, or the section 48 credit with respect to a specified clean hydrogen production facility. This information would generally be used by the DOE to assist applicants in obtaining their emissions values and may be provided to the IRS for tax compliance purposes.
This document addresses a collection of information related to submitting an Emissions Value Request Application and supporting documentation to the DOE to enable the DOE to provide an analytical assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions of the applicant's facility's hydrogen production process. Prior to the opening of the emissions value request process, the DOE will publish on its website Instructions for submitting an Emissions Value Request Application and other application material at the following URL:
The Emissions Value Request Application will require that applicants provide specific sections of a FEED Study based on an AACE Class 3 Cost Estimate and other detailed hydrogen production and emissions information as described in this document. The information submitted with Emissions Value Request Applications would allow the DOE to prepare its analytical assessments of the hydrogen production pathways for which applicants are requesting emissions values, which are necessary for hydrogen producers whose hydrogen production pathways are not included in the 45VH2-GREET model
A summary of paperwork burden estimates for the emissions value request process is as follows:
Comments are requested on the collection requirements for the DOE's Emissions Value Request Application process. Written comments for the proposed information collection should be submitted through
1. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the DOE, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information.
3. How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced.
4. How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
5. Estimates of capital costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.
Once approved by OMB under the DOE OMB Control Number 1910-NEW, notice will be given in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (updated annually for inflation). This document does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
Executive Order 13132 (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 preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This document 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.
The principal author of this document is the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department, the DOE, and the IRS participated in the development of the document.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of inquiry.
The Coast Guard is seeking information and comments on a potential regulated navigation area for certain waters surrounding the Port of Miami. The current proposal in consideration would establish a slow speed zone throughout Fisherman's Channel and the Main Ship Channel for vessels less than 150 meters in length. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 13, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2024-0205 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this notice or study, call or email Mr. David Lieberman, Seventh Coast Guard District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (571) 608-3465, email
The Captain of the Port (COTP) Miami has determined there has been an increase in navigational risk in certain waterways in proximity to the Port of Miami as the port continues to expand and vessel traffic increases. On May 10th and 11th of 2023, Coast Guard Navigation Center (NAVCEN) and Sector Miami held a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) with key local stakeholders. As a result, the workshop identified hazards associated to the port, with the largest concern for navigational safety being the high speed of vessels and wake created by increased vessel traffic. The Coast Guard has received reports of an increasing number of incidents as vessel traffic has increased.
On June 25, 2023, around 3:30 a.m. a recreational vessel traveling at a high rate of speed through the Main ship channel collided with a vehicle ferry. This incident resulted in the loss of life as well as impact to the movement of passenger and cargo vessels in the Port of Miami over a 12-hour period. Additionally, on February 12, 2024, a recreational vessel collied with an inspected passenger vessel in Fisherman's Channel. This incident resulted in 13 injuries. With the creation of a regulated navigation area the Coast Guard intends to reduce the navigational risk associated with high-speed vessel operations in a densely trafficked waterway.
In addition to these incidents, the Port of Miami is expanding its cruise ship terminals and expects vessel and passenger throughput increases over the next several years. This increase in passenger service, accompanied by an increase in Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) bunkering operations in the port introduce a new set of operational risks in the area.
These risks, in combination with the criticality of this port to the local and regional economy, form the basis for evaluation of additional measures to enhance navigation safety. The establishment of a regulated navigation area is expected to promote improvements to vessel traffic management, reduce high speed operations and enhance navigation safety. The current proposal in consideration would establish a slow speed restriction on vessels less than 150 meters within the Port of Miami.
To aid us in further developing a proposed rule, we seek responses from waterway users to the following questions:
(1) Do you currently transit through Fisherman's Channel or the Main Channel in Biscayne Bay?
(2) How often do you transit this waterway?
(3) Is there a specific part of either channel that you find to be dangerous to navigate in?
(4) Has your vessel or other property ever been damaged as a result of vessel operations in this area?
(5) Is there a specific speed limitation you think would help reduce the risk of transiting through this area?
(6) Is there a specific part of either channel you think should require a reduced speed?
(7) Is there a specific part of either channel you think should not require a reduced speed?
(8) What challenges have you experienced when transiting this area due to increased vessel traffic?
(9) How would a speed restriction impact your ability to safety operate your vessel?
(10) Do you think other measures would be more appropriate than a speed restriction? If so, what measures would you propose?
(11) Are there any other factors you think the Coast Guard should consider before moving forward with this rulemaking?
We encourage you to submit comments in response to this NOI through the Federal Decision Making Portal at
To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
We may hold a public meeting, if necessary, to receive oral comments on this Notice of Inquiry and will announce the date, time, and location in a separate document published in the
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 46 U.S.C. 70034.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on the Commission's review of the system for regulating rates and classes for Market Dominant products (ratemaking system). The Commission previously reviewed the ratemaking system and adopted final rules via Order No. 5763. After the final rules took effect on January 14, 2021, the Postal Service filed five notices proposing to adjust rates for Market Dominant products, and Market Dominant volume and pieces have declined year-over-year. These declines and stakeholder concerns prompted the Commission to initiate another review of the ratemaking system. This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 503 and 3622(d)(3), the Commission finds that it is appropriate to initiate this proceeding to review the system for regulating rates and classes for Market Dominant products (collectively, “ratemaking system”) to determine if the ratemaking system is achieving the objectives appearing in 39 U.S.C. 3622(b), taking into account the factors in 39 U.S.C. 3622(c). The Commission seeks comments regarding this review.
Interested persons are invited to provide written comments to facilitate the Commission's review of the ratemaking system. Commenters are encouraged to comment as generally or specifically as they deem appropriate. Below the Commission identifies specific topics on which it would particularly appreciate comment. However, commenters are not limited to addressing these identified topics—the Commission will consider all comments that fall within the scope of this proceeding.
1. Is the ratemaking system achieving the statutory objectives, while taking into account the statutory factors? Why or why not?
2. If the ratemaking system is not achieving the statutory objectives, while taking into account the statutory factors, should modifications be made or an alternative system be adopted to achieve the statutory objectives?
a. Why or why not?
b. If so, what modifications to the ratemaking system should be made or what alternative system should be adopted?
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet), Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted a revision to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) on November 29, 2022. The SIP revision updates the geographical boundary description and attainment status designation for the Henderson-Webster nonattainment area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0253 at
Josue Ortiz Borrero, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Ortiz can be reached via phone number (404) 562-8085 or via electronic mail at
On November 29, 2022, the Cabinet submitted a SIP revision containing changes to 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulation (KAR) 51:010—
Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA require EPA to set NAAQS for the criteria air pollutants: O
Section 107(d) of the CAA governs the process for these area designations. Under this process, states and tribes submit recommendations to EPA as to whether an area is attaining the NAAQS for criteria air pollutants. EPA then considers these recommendations as part of its obligation to promulgate the area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. EPA codifies its designations for areas within each state in 40 CFR part 81.
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO
EPA completed the remaining area designations in three specific “rounds” of designations: July 2, 2016 (“Round 2”), December 31, 2017 (“Round 3”), and December 31, 2020 (“Round 4”). EPA designated the Henderson-Webster area
Kentucky's November 29, 2022, submission updates the attainment status designation for the 2010 SO
Kentucky's SIP revision also provides minor language changes to 401 KAR 51:010. The revision replaces the text “designates the status” with the phrase “establishes the designation status” in reference to the purpose of the rule. In section 2, paragraph (1), the phrase “shall be as listed” replaces “is listed” in reference to the NAAQS listed in sections 4 through 10 of 401 KAR 51:010. Subparagraph 3 is revised by replacing “defines” with “delineates” in the sentence “A road, junction, or intersection of two (2) or more roads as used in Section 7 of this administrative regulation that defines a nonattainment boundary for an area that is a portion of a county designated as nonattainment for ozone for any classification except marginal, shall include as nonattainment an area extending 750 feet from the center of the road, junction, or intersection.” Also, Kentucky removed the reference to section 7 in that sentence because section 7 specifies that it applies to ozone nonattainment areas.
EPA is proposing to approve the November 29, 2022, submission which amends paragraph (2) of section 9 in 401 KAR 51:010 to include the nonattainment designation status for the Henderson-Webster area for the 2010 primary SO
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in sections I and II of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Kentucky Regulation 401 KAR 51:010,
EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's November 29, 2022, SIP revision described above, which among other things, updates regulation 401 KAR 51:010 to amend the attainment status designation for the Henderson-Webster SO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The Cabinet did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
United States African Development Foundation.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration. This meeting will occur at the USADF office.
The meeting date is Tuesday, April 30, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.
Kerline Perry, (202)233-8805.
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 May 13, 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
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Solicitation of nominations for membership.
The United States Department of Agriculture (Department) is seeking nominations for the Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (Eastern Region Recreation RAC) pursuant to the authority of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended. The Eastern Region Recreation RAC will provide recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on recreation fees on lands and waters managed by the Forest Service and the Department
Nominations must be submitted via email or postmarked by May 31, 2024.
Nominations and resumes may be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service via Krystal Fleeger, Regional Recreation Fees and Reservations Coordinator, Eastern Regional Office, 626 E Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202 or via email to
Inquiries may be sent to Krystal Fleeger, Regional Recreation Fees and Reservations Coordinator, Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, Eastern Regional Office, 626 E Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202, 503-828-0349 or via email
Pursuant to Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 108-447) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 10), notice is hereby given the Secretary of Agriculture's intent to solicit members. Additional information on the Eastern Region Recreation RAC can be found by visiting the committee website at
The Eastern Region Recreation RAC will be comprised of 11 members approved by the Secretary of Agriculture where each will serve a two or three-year term. Memberships shall include representation from the following interest areas:
The appointment of members to the Eastern Region Recreation RAC will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture, or their designee. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership. Interested candidates may nominate themselves. Individuals who wish to be considered for membership on the committee must submit a nomination with information, including a background disclosure form (Form AD-755,
1. If nominating an individual, a brief summary, no more than two pages, explaining the nominee's qualifications to serve on the committee and addressing the membership composition and criteria described above.
2. A resume providing the nominee's background, experience, and educational qualifications.
3. A completed background disclosure form (Form AD-755) signed by the nominee.
4. Letters of endorsement are optional.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the committee have taken in account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and person with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Mink Survey. A revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by June 10, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0212, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph L. Parsons, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without
All NASS employees and NASS contractors must also fully comply with all provisions of the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) of 2018, title III of Public Law 115-435, codified in 44 U.S.C. ch. 35. CIPSEA supports NASS's pledge of confidentiality to all respondents and facilitates the agency's efforts to reduce burden by supporting statistical activities of collaborative agencies through designation of NASS agents, subject to the limitations and penalties described in CIPSEA. NASS uses the information only for statistical purposes and publishes only tabulated total data.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Egg, Chicken, and Turkey Surveys. A revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by June 10, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0004, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph L. Parsons, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Richard Hopper, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-2206 or at
All NASS employees and NASS contractors must also fully comply with all provisions of the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) of 2018, title III of Public Law 115-435, codified in 44 U.S.C. ch. 35. CIPSEA supports NASS's pledge of confidentiality to all respondents and facilitates the agency's efforts to reduce burden by supporting statistical activities of collaborative agencies through designation of NASS agents, subject to the limitations and penalties described in CIPSEA. NASS uses the information only for statistical purposes and publishes only tabulated total data.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business meeting.
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 Washington Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via ZoomGov on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Pacific Time, for the purpose of discussing their policy brief and other post-report activities.
The meeting will take place on:
• Wednesday, April 24, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. PT.
Brooke Peery, DFO, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captions will be provided for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialists, at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
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 New York Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to vote on the Committee's draft report.
Friday, April 19, 2024, from 1 p.m. eastern time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Mallory Trachtenberg, DFO, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Twin Disc, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Lufkin, Texas within Subzone 297A. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 4, 2024.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed foreign-status material/component is cellulose fiber gaskets (duty rate is duty-free). The request indicates the material/component is subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on May 1 and 2, 2024, 9:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology. The purpose of the meeting is to have Committee members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014). The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action were it to be disclosed prematurely. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2024, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 10 of the FACA, (5 U.S.C. 1009(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, contact Ms. Springer via email.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) seeks public comment on any subsidies, including stumpage subsidies, provided by certain countries exporting softwood lumber or softwood lumber products to the United States during the period July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Comments must be submitted within 30 days after publication of this notice.
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.
Pursuant to section 805 of Title VIII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008), the Secretary of Commerce is mandated to submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report every 180 days on any subsidy provided by countries exporting softwood lumber or softwood lumber products to the United States, including stumpage subsidies. Commerce submitted its last subsidy report to the Congress on December 28, 2023.
Given the large number of countries that export softwood lumber and softwood lumber products to the United States, we are soliciting public comment only on subsidies provided by countries which had exports accounting for at least one percent of total U.S. imports of softwood lumber by quantity, as classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 4407.1100, 4407.1200, 4407.1300, 4407.1400, and 4407.1900, during the period July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Official U.S. import data, published by the United States International Trade Commission's DataWeb, indicate that five countries (Austria, Brazil, Canada, Germany, and Sweden) exported softwood lumber to the United States during that time period in amounts sufficient to account for at least one percent of U.S. imports of softwood lumber products. We intend to rely on similar six-month periods to identify the countries subject to future reports on softwood lumber subsidies. For example, we intend to rely on U.S. imports of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products during the period January 1, 2024, through June 30, 2024, to select the countries subject for the next report.
Under U.S. trade law, a subsidy exists where an authority: (i) provides a financial contribution; (ii) provides any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade 1994; or (iii) makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution to a person, or entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution, if providing the contribution would normally be vested in the government and the practice does not differ in substance from practices normally followed by governments, and a benefit is thereby conferred.
Parties should include in their comments: (1) the country which provided the subsidy; (2) the name of the subsidy program; (3) a brief description (no more than 3-4 sentences) of the subsidy program; and (4) the government body or authority that provided the subsidy.
As specified above, to be assured of consideration, comments must be received no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice in the
All comments should be addressed to Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty
Applicable April 5, 2024.
Luke Caruso or Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2081 or (202) 482-3936, respectively.
On March 16, 2018, Commerce published in the
On April 5, 2024, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by the
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co., Ltd. (Jingye), Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd. (Ulix), and the remaining 39 companies for which the administrative review was initiated, are not eligible for separate rates and are therefore, part of the People's Republic of China (China)-wide entity. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022.
Applicable April 11, 2024.
Aleksandras Nakutis or Jacob Keller, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147 and (202) 482-4849, respectively.
On December 7, 2023, Commerce published in the
The merchandise covered by this
All issues raised in the briefs filed by interested parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in Appendix I 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 record information, Commerce determines that all 41 companies subject to this administrative review are a part of the China-wide entity.
Commerce considers the 41 companies for which a review was requested (which did not file a separate rate application or did not demonstrate separate rate eligibility) listed in Appendix II to this notice, to be part of the China-wide entity.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for 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 any previously investigated or reviewed Chinese or non-Chinese exporter that has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter's existing cash deposit rate; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate and identified in Appendix II of this notice, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (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 sanctionable violation.
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 and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hydrofluorocarbon blends (HFC blends) from the People's Republic of China (China) to correct ministerial errors. Based on the amended final results, we find that the sole mandatory respondent, Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Sanmei) sold HFC blends in the United States at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) August 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022.
Applicable April 11, 2024.
Jerry Xiao, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2273.
On March 8, 2024, Commerce published in the
A ministerial error, as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.”
Commerce determined that it made inadvertent errors within the meaning of section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f) with respect to certain calculations regarding the following: (1) a surrogate freight cost for a utility input; (2) the resulting total value of that input; and (3) the value of perchloroethylene, an input used to make HFC blends. Accordingly, we determine, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that we made ministerial errors in the
As a result of correcting these ministerial errors, Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these amended final results of review to interested parties within five days after public announcement of the amended final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of amended final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review.
For Sanmei, Commerce calculated importer-specific assessment rates for antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce calculated importer-specific
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by Sanmei, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the amended final results of this review in the
The following amended cash deposit requirements will be effective retroactively upon publication of the amended final results of this administrative review 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 the exporter listed above, Sanmei, the amended cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the amended final results of this review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that currently have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the exporter received that separate 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 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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being
Applicable April 11, 2024.
Theodore Pearson, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2631.
On November 6, 2023, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review in the
The products covered by this order are kegs from China. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
For the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, we determine that the following net countervailable subsidies exist:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies listed above for shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results of this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that imports of R-410B, R-407G, and a custom hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blend of 50-percent R-125 and 50-percent R-134a (custom HFC blend) which are blended in the People's Republic of China (China) using China-origin HFC components and further processed in the United States, are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on HFC blends from China. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable April 11, 2024.
Benjamin Nathan, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3834.
On August 19, 2016, Commerce published in the
The merchandise covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers imports of R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend which are blended in China using China-origin HFC components and further processed in the United States (inquiry merchandise).
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.226. For a complete description of the methodology underlying this circumvention inquiry,
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce preliminarily determines that R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend which are blended in China using China-origin HFC components and further processed in the United States are circumventing the
Based on the preliminary affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for China, in accordance with section 19 CFR 351.226(l)(2), Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of previously suspended entries and to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 7, 2023, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the
The blends subject to this inquiry not further processed in the United States are not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise under the
Where no certification is provided for an entry, and the
Entries for which the importer has met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be subject to either the suspension of liquidation or the cash deposit requirements described above. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to duties.
To administer the preliminary affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention, Commerce established importer certifications, which allow companies to certify that specific entries of R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits pursuant
Importers that claim that their entries of merchandise subject to this inquiry from China are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise is not further processed into subject merchandise in the United States must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the importer certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification and retain all supporting documentation. The importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry. The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit the importer's certification to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading it into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer.
Additionally, the claims made in the certification and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend from China that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period July 7, 2023 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend from China that were declared as non-AD type entries (
If it is determined that an importer has not met the certification and/or related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this preliminary affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention and the
Interested parties may comment on these certification requirements, and on the certification language contained in Appendix II to this notice in their case briefs.
Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this circumvention inquiry, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the requesting party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of individuals from the requesting party that will attend the hearing and whether any of those individuals is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues that the party intends to discuss at the hearing. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date of the hearing.
Consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of this preliminary determination to
Commerce is issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(1).
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS of IMPORTING COMPANY};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blend R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend produced in China that entered under the entry number(s) identified below, and which are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the importation of the product, including the exporter's and/or foreign seller's identity and location;
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend covered by this certification were imported by {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER}.
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED} located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. Select the appropriate statement below:
___ I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the end use of the imported products covered by this certification because my company is the end user of the imported product covered by this certification and I certify that the R-410B, R-407G, and a certain custom HFC blend will not be used to produce subject merchandise. “Direct Personal knowledge” includes information contained within my company's books and records.
___ I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the end use of the imported products covered by this certification because my company is not the end user of the imported product covered by this certification. However, I have been able to contact the end user of the imported product and confirm that it will not use this product to produce subject merchandise. The end user of the imported product is {COMPANY NAME} located at {ADDRESS}. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party (
F. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Entry Summary #:
Entry Summary Line Item #:
Foreign Seller:
Foreign Seller's Address:
Foreign Seller's Invoice #:
Foreign Seller's Invoice Line Item #:
Producer:
Producer's Address:
G. I understand that {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
H. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to submit a copy of the importer certification as part of the entry summary by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE, and to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, upon request of either agency;
I. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
J. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
K. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification. Where a broker or other party was used to facilitate the entry process, {NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} obtained the entry summary number and date of entry summary from that party.
L. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
M. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before June 10, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Liz Reinhart, Management Analyst, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Cierra Bean, Business Operations Specialist, CHIPS Program Office,
The CHIPS Incentives Program is authorized by Title XCIX—Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283, referred to as the CHIPS Act or Act), as amended by the CHIPS Act of 2022 (Division A of Pub. L. 117-167). The CHIPS Incentives Program is administered by the CHIPS Program Office (CPO) within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the United States Department of Commerce (Department).
All Federal agencies administering programs subject to Davis-Bacon wage provisions are required by CFR part 5, section 5.7 (b) to submit a report of all new covered contracts/projects and all compliance and enforcement activities every six months to the Department of Labor (DOL). In order for CPO to comply with this reporting requirement, it must collect contract and enforcement information from CHIPS and Science Act Incentives Program awardees, the Department's direct contractors, and other prime contractors that administer the Department's programs subject to Davis-Bacon requirements. The Department will require that such entities complete and submit a Semi-Annual Enforcement Report every six months, by the 21st of April and the 21st of October each year.
Submit semi-annual report to the Department 20 days after the end of semi-annual reporting period by April 20th and October 20th for applicable performance period. The CHIPS Semi-Annual Enforcement Report is due to DOL by April 30 and October 31 of each year. The April 30 report is for the reporting period from October 1 through March 31 of each year, and the October 31 report is for the reporting period from April 1 through September 30 of each year. The Department asks for the information by the 20th of the month in which it is due (
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 84 Assessment Webinar I for U.S Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper and Stoplight Parrotfish.
The SEDAR 84 assessment process of U.S. Caribbean yellowtail snapper and stoplight parrotfish will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 84 assessment webinar I will be held April 30, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Assessment webinar I are as follows:
Panelists will review and discuss initial assessment modeling to date.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS received a request from Chevron Products Company (Chevron) for the renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to the Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project (LWMEP) in San Francisco Bay, California. Chevron's activities will not be completed prior to the IHA's expiration. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 26, 2024.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and should be submitted via email to
Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023), NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal of an IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires, and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA);
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized; and
3. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
On May 12, 2023, NMFS issued an IHA to Chevron to take marine mammals incidental to the LWMEP in San Francisco Bay, California (88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023), effective from June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. On February 23, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted. That report and other supporting materials can be found on the project website:
The Chevron LWMEP consists of construction activities to upgrade Berth 1 of the Refinery Long Wharf in San Francisco Bay, California, in order to meet current safety and efficiency standards. Chevron's planned construction at Berth 1 included: vibratory extraction of two 18-inch concrete piles associated with an existing gangway and catwalk; impact installation of 42 24-inch square concrete piles to construct a mooring dolphin and hook, breasting dolphin and breasting points with standoff fenders, and to replace the catwalk in a different location; vibratory installation of a temporary construction template composed of up to 12 36-inch steel piles; and vibratory extraction of the same temporary steel piles when in-
Due to unexpected difficulty with pile installation, Chevron was only able to complete vibratory extraction and impact installation of concrete piles, and vibratory installation of temporary steel piles. The applicant initially determined 12 36-inch steel piles would be needed to support the template; however, only 10 steel piles were needed and installed via vibratory hammer. Chevron plans to complete the remaining construction activities, which includes vibratory extraction of the 10 steel piles, in up to 8 non-consecutive days during 1 month during June 1 through November 30, 2024. This renewal request is to cover the subset of activities in the initial IHA that will not be completed during the effective IHA period.
The initial IHA was intended to cover 1 year of a larger project for which Chevron obtained prior IHAs and intends to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project. The larger 5-year project involves upgrading Long Wharf to satisfy current Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards. The Long Wharf has 6 berths for receiving raw materials and shipping products. The project area encompasses the entirety of Berth 1, an area of approximately 470 square meters (m
Chevron's proposed activity includes vibratory pile removal, which may result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by harassment only. Due to mitigation measures, no Level A harassment is anticipated to occur, and none is proposed for authorization. The likely or possible impacts of the Chevron's proposed activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors and is unchanged from the impacts described in
A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023; 88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023). As previously mentioned, this request is for a subset of the activities considered for the initial IHA that would not be completed prior to its expiration. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notice for the initial IHA. The proposed renewal IHA would be effective from June 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs), and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the description of the marine mammals in the area of specified activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA (88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023).
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which an authorization of incidental take is proposed here may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft SARs, information on relevant UMEs, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023; 88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023). Specifically, the area or space within which harassment is likely to occur and marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial IHA. Similarly, methods of take, daily take estimates and types of take remain unchanged from the initial IHA, with the exception of California sea lion and gray whale. The number of takes proposed for authorization in this renewal are a subset of the initial authorized takes that better represent the amount of activity left to complete. These takes, which reflect the lower number of remaining days of work, are indicated below in table 1. Takes are calculated using the same methodology as the initial IHA, and are just a proportion of the initial takes based on up to 8 days of work remaining.
For California sea lions, a maximum of four individuals have been seen in a single day based on previous monitoring reports. To account for this possibility, Chevron estimated 2 days of four individuals entering the project area and one individual for the remaining 6 days of work. Therefore, Chevron requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, 14 takes of California sea lions by Level B harassment.
The initial IHA authorized 2 takes by Level B harassment of gray whale. No gray whale takes have occurred, and given the already very low number of takes previously authorized (2 animals), NMFS proposes to authorize 2 takes of gray whale in this renewal IHA, rather than a proportion of the initial takes.
Based upon prior occurrences in the Bay, Chevron conservatively estimated, and NMFS concurred, that a maximum of 10 northern fur seals could occur in the project area during the 30 day in-water construction activity period for the initial IHA. Since only 8 days of in-water work are proposed for this renewal IHA, NMFS proposes to authorize 3 takes of northern fur seals by Level B harassment.
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the
The following mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are proposed for this renewal, Chevron will:
• Employ at least two protected species observers (PSOs) to monitor the full shutdown zones, the Level B harassment zones to the extent practicable, and implement pre- and post-clearance monitoring;
• Implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 meters for in-water construction activities;
• Shut down if marine mammals come within the designated hearing group-specific shutdown zones;
• Shut down if any species for which take has not been authorized enters the Level B harassment zone;
• Submit a draft monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days of completion of marine mammal monitoring or 60 days prior to issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first;
• Prepare and submit a final report within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS;
• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above); and
• Report injured or dead marine mammals.
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for construction activities associated with LWMEP and on the potential for a renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received no comments on either the proposal to issue the initial IHA or the potential for a renewal IHA.
The proposed renewal request consists of a subset of activities analyzed through the initial authorization described above. In analyzing the effects of the activities for the initial IHA, NMFS determined that Chevron's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock and that authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks (
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Chevron's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this proposed action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a renewal IHA to Chevron for conducting pile extraction activities in San Francisco Bay from June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025, provided the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
The LOA is effective from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
Shell plans to conduct a 4D ocean bottom node (OBN) survey in the Mississippi Canyon 941 and portions of the surrounding 80 lease blocks; Vito Development, with approximate water depths ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 meters (m). See Section F of the LOA application for a map of the area. Shell anticipates using a single source vessel, towing a conventional airgun array source consisting of 32 elements, with a total volume of 5,110 cubic inches (in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by Shell in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5398, January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
No OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
In addition, all available acoustic exposure modeling results assume use of a 72-element, 8,000 in
The survey is planned to occur for approximately 90 days in Zone 5, with airguns being used on 60 of the days. The seasonal distribution of survey days is not known in advance. Therefore, the take estimates for each species are based on the season that has the greater value for the species (
For some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when considered in light of other relevant information available during the rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large area of each modeling zone. Thus, although the modeling conducted for the rule is a natural starting point for estimating take, the rule acknowledged that other information could be considered (see,
NMFS' final rule described a “core habitat area” for Rice's whales (formerly known as GOM Bryde's whales)
Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the core habitat area, we expect that any such occurrence would be limited to the narrow band of suitable habitat described above (
Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM, typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts
NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992 to 2009 reported only 16 sightings of killer whales, with an additional 3 encounters during more recent survey effort from 2017 to 2018 (Waring
The rarity of encounter during seismic surveys is not likely to be the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike certain cryptic species with high detection bias, such as
In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water (>700 m). This survey would take place in deep waters that would overlap with depths in which killer whales typically occur. While this information is reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less likely to occur. NMFS' determination in reflection of the data discussed above, which informed the final rule, is that use of the generic acoustic exposure modeling results for killer whales will generally result in estimated take numbers that are inconsistent with the assumptions made in the rule regarding expected killer whale take (86 FR 5403, January 19, 2021).
In past authorizations, NMFS has often addressed situations involving the low likelihood of encountering a rare species such as killer whales in the GOM through authorization of take of a single group of average size (
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than one day (see 86 FR 5404, January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of Shell's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to Shell authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorizations; request for comments on proposed authorizations and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the United States Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to 2 years of construction activities associated with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest (NAVFAC NW) Maintenance and Pile Replacement (MPR) project in Puget Sound, Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue two consecutive 1-year incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than May 13, 2024.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and should be submitted via email to
Kate Fleming, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHAs qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the request for two consecutive IHAs.
On October 5, 2023, NMFS received a request from the Navy for two consecutive 1-year IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to construction associated with the Navy's NAVFAC NW MPR project in Puget Sound, Washington. Following NMFS' review of the application, the Navy submitted a revised version on December 14, 2023, additional information on January 10, 2024, and the marine mammal monitoring plan on January 23, 2024. Final revisions to both the application and the marine mammal monitoring plan were provided on March 2, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on February 27, 2024. The Navy's request is for take of 10 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and, for harbor seal, Level B and Level A harassment. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity. Therefore, IHAs are appropriate.
NMFS previously issued a regulation and associated Letters of Authorization to the Navy for related work (84 FR 15963, April 17, 2019;
Maintaining existing wharfs and piers is vital to sustaining the Navy's mission and ensuring readiness. To ensure continuance of necessary missions at the four installations, the Navy must conduct annual maintenance and repair activities at existing marine waterfront structures, including removal and replacement of piles of various types and sizes. The Navy refers to this program as the Marine Structure MPR program.
The activities that have the potential to take marine mammals by Level A harassment and Level B harassment include installation and/or removal of timber, concrete, and steel piles by vibratory and impact pile driving and down-the hole (DTH) drilling. Construction would span the course of 2 years, with the first year beginning on July 15, 2024, and lasting through July 14, 2025. The second year of construction activities would begin July 15, 2025, and continue through July 14, 2026.
The Navy has requested the issuance of two consecutive IHAs in association with the two project years. Given the similarities in activities between project years, NMFS is issuing this single
The Navy anticipates that the planned NAVFAC NW MPR activities will occur over 2 years. The year 1 IHA would be valid from July 1, 2024-June 30, 2025, and the year 2 would span July 1, 2025-June 30, 2026. The specified activities would occur at any time during each project year, subject to existing time of year restrictions, or in-water work windows, designed to protect fish species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). For Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bangor (located in Hood Canal), in-water work would occur from July 16 through January 15 each project year. At the remaining three facilities (located in Puget Sound), in-water work would occur from July 16 through February 15.
Days of pile driving at each site were based on the estimated work days using a slow production rate (
The four installations are located within the inland waters of Washington State. One facility is located within Hood Canal, while the remainder are located within Puget Sound. See figure 1-1 of the Navy's application for a regional map and section 2 for full details regarding the specified geographical region. Puget Sound is one of the largest estuaries in the United States and is a place of great physical and ecological complexity and productivity. With nearly six million people (doubled since the 1960s), Puget Sound is also heavily influenced by human activity.
NBK Bangor serves as the Pacific homeport for the Navy's TRIDENT submarine squadron and other ships home-ported or moored at the installation and to maintain and operate administrative and personnel support facilities including security, berthing, messing, and recreational services. It is located on Hood Canal, a long, narrow, fjord-like basin of western Puget Sound (see figure 1-2 of the Navy's application). Oriented northeast to southwest, the portion of the canal from Admiralty Inlet to a large bend, called the Great Bend, at Skokomish, Washington, is 84 kilometers (km) (52 miles (mi)) long. East of the Great Bend, the canal extends an additional 24 km (15 mi) to Belfair. Throughout its 108-km (67 mi) length, the width of the canal varies from 1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 2 mi) and exhibits strong depth/elevation gradients. Hood Canal is characterized by relatively steep sides and irregular seafloor topography. In northern Hood Canal, water depths in the center of the waterway near Admiralty Inlet vary between 91 and 128 meters (m) (300 and 420 feet (ft)). As the canal extends southwestward toward the Olympic Mountain Range and Thorndyke Bay, water depth decreases to approximately 49 m (160 ft) over a moraine deposit. This deposit forms a sill across the canal
NBK Bremerton serves as the homeport for a nuclear aircraft carrier and other Navy vessels. It is located on the north side of Sinclair Inlet in southern Puget Sound (see figure 1-3 of the Navy's application). Sinclair Inlet is located off the main basin of Puget Sound and is about 6.9 km long and 1.9 km wide. The inlet is connected to the main basin through Port Orchard Narrows and Rich Passage. Another relatively narrow waterway, Port Washington Narrows, connects Sinclair Inlet to Dyes Inlet. In-water structures, shoreline fill, and erosion protection at NBK Bremerton have resulted in a shoreline geometry and character that is quite different from undisturbed shorelines in Puget Sound. Bathymetry near existing piers and in turning basins immediately offshore has been altered by significant dredging to accommodate aircraft carriers and other Navy vessels. Water depths range from 12 to 14 m (40 to 45 ft), increasing to 14 to 15 m (45 to 50 ft) in dredged berthing areas. West of the project sites, further into Sinclair Inlet, depths gradually decrease to less than 9 m (30 ft).
NBK Manchester provides bulk fuel and lubricant support to area Navy afloat and shore activities. It is located on Orchard Point, approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) due east of Bremerton. Please see figure 1-4 of the Navy's application. The installation is bounded by Clam Bay to the northwest, Rich Passage to the northeast, and Puget Sound to the east. NBK Manchester piers are located on the north side of Orchard Point and in a small embayment open on the south side of Orchard Point. In Clam Bay, the bathymetry is gently sloping with depths in the outer portions of the bay of approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) below mean lower low water (MLLW). Depths off Orchard Point drop off dramatically to 18 m (60 ft) below MLLW approximately 150 m (500 ft) from shore and 90 m (300 ft) below MLLW 1.6 km (1 m) offshore. Rich Passage is a shallow sill, less than 21 m (70 ft) deep.
Naval Station (NS) Everett provides homeport ship berthing, industrial support, and a Navy administrative center. It is located in Port Gardner Bay in Puget Sound's Whidbey Basin (see figure 1-5 of the Navy's application). To the west of the installation is the channelized mouth of the Snohomish River bounded by Jetty Island, which is composed of sediment from maintenance dredging and acts as a breakwater for the northwest area along the installation's waterfront. Jetty Island separates Port Gardner Bay and Possession Sound from the Snohomish River channel. The mouth of the Snohomish River channel is a historically industrialized area of highly modified shorelines and dredged waterways that forms a protected harbor within Port Gardner Bay. East of Jetty Island lies the Snohomish River estuary, consisting of a series of interconnected sloughs that flow through the lowlands east and north of the river's main channel. Water depths in Possession Sound range from about 9 m (30 ft) near the industrialized shoreline in Port Gardner to 180 m (600 ft) in mid-channel.
The Navy plans to conduct maintenance and repair activities at marine waterfront structures at the four aforementioned installations within Puget Sound (Washington inland waters) and Hood Canal. Repairs would include replacing up to 150 structurally unsound piles with 164 concrete or steel piles over a 1-year period (July 2024 through July 2025) at NBK Bremerton and NBK Manchester using impact and vibratory pile driving and removal and DTH drilling; and replacing 130 structurally unsound piles over a 1-year period (July 2025-July 2026) at NBK Bremerton, NBK Bangor and NS Everett using impact and vibratory pile driving and removal.
Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of pile types, sizes, and maximum numbers of piles at each installation to be replaced over the two 1-year MPR Program periods from July 2024-July 2025 and July 2025-July 2026, respectively. This estimate assumes all piles would be removed and replaced with new piles. However, existing piles may be repaired in place with no new piles installed and if replaced piles are larger than existing piles, typically fewer piles are needed. Therefore, estimates of replaced piles for each installation are a conservative overestimate. These estimates also include temporary (or “false work”) piles that may be required during construction. Actual numbers will depend on the number actually replaced and the size and type of new piles installed.
The MPR program includes pile repair, extraction, and installation, all of which may be accomplished through a variety of methods. However, only pile extraction and installation using vibratory and impact pile drivers and DTH drilling are expected to have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals. Pile repair methods include stubbing, wrapping, pile encapsulation, welding, or coating. These processes do not involve pile driving and are not expected to have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals. Pile removal may be accomplished via vibratory extraction or via mechanical methods such as cutting/chipping, clamshell removal, or direct pull. Four primary methods of pile installation would be used: water jetting, vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, or DTH drilling. Noise levels produced through mechanical extraction activities and water jetting are not expected to exceed baseline levels produced by other routine activities and operations at the four facilities, and any elevated noise levels produced through these activities are expected to be intermittent, of short duration, and with low peak values. Therefore, only impact and vibratory pile driving, vibratory removal, and DTH drilling are carried forward for further analysis.
Vibratory hammers, which can be used to either install or extract a pile, contain a system of counter-rotating eccentric weights powered by hydraulic motors, and are designed in such a way that horizontal vibrations cancel out, while vertical vibrations are transmitted into the pile. The pile driving machine is lifted and positioned over the pile by means of an excavator or crane, and is fastened to the pile by a clamp and/or bolts. The vibrations produced cause liquefaction of the substrate surrounding the pile, enabling the pile to be extracted or driven into the ground using the weight of the pile plus the hammer. Impact hammers use a rising and falling piston to repeatedly strike a pile and drive it into the ground. DTH drilling is a common method used to drill holes through hard rock substrates. DTH drilling uses rotary cutting percussion action using a button bit. In DTH drilling, the drill pipe transmits the necessary feed force and rotation to the hammer and bit, along with the compressed air used to actuate the hammer and flush the cuttings.
Between July 2024 and July 2025, the following activities are planned: (1) At NBK Bremerton, 25 13-inch (in) timber fender piles would be removed at Pier C using vibratory pile driving or pulling and replaced with 25 24-in concrete fender piles using impact pile driving. At the same installation, 53 13-in timber piles would be vibratory removed at Pier 5 and replaced with up to 65 18-in concrete piles using impact pile driving. Impact pile driving at Pier 5 may occur at the same time as vibratory pile driving at Pier C, though Pier 5 is shielded from Pier C pile driving sound by Dry Dock 6, which is a solid structure extending into Sinclair Inlet; and (2) At NBK Manchester a total of 72 26-in steel piles would be removed and replaced with 74 24-in concrete piles at the Fuel Pier. Concrete piles would be installed using DTH drilling in areas with bedrock while impact pile driving would be used if there is no bedrock.
Between July 2025 and July 2026, the following activities are planned: (1) Up to 78 steel fender piles (36-in) at NBK Bangor are anticipated to be removed by vibratory pile driving or cutting, and 78 steel fender piles (36-in) could be installed using vibratory pile driving with impact proofing at this same location; (2) A total of 48 24-in steel fender piles would be removed and replaced with 48 new 24-in steel fender piles using vibratory pile driving at NBK Bremerton, Pier F; and (3) At NS Everett a total of 4 12-in steel piles will be removed by vibratory pile driving or cutting and replaced with 4 12-in steel piles by vibratory or impact pile driving if necessary at Pier A.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for both proposed IHAs, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at:
As indicated above, all 10 species (with 14 managed stocks) in table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project areas are included in table 3-1 of the application for two consecutive IHAs. While Pacific white-sided dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, long-beaked common dolphin, and Risso's dolphin have been documented in the Puget Sound, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. Additionally, the range of the southern Puget Sound stock of harbor seal does not overlap with the project area and the stock is not discussed further. These species are very rare in Puget Sound and are not expected to occur near any of the MPR installations.
In addition, the northern sea otter may be found in the Puget Sound area. However, northern sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
Gray whales are observed in Washington inland waters in all months of the year, with peak numbers occurring from March through June (Calambokidis
In the waterways near NBK Bremerton (Rich Passage/Sinclair Inlet/Dyes Inlet/Agate Passage), 11 opportunistic sightings of gray whales were reported to the Orca Network (a public marine mammal sightings database) between 2003 and 2012. In October 2020, PSOs observed a gray whale near NBK Bangor during construction associated with a Pier Extension Project (DoN, 2021). PSOs were on site observing marine mammals for 99 days between July 2020 and January 2021 (DoN, 2021) and for 32 days between October 2021 and January 2022 (DoN, 2022). However, gray whales were not observed during monitoring efforts associated with other projects occurring at relevant Navy installations in Puget Sound. This includes two projects occurring at NBK Bangor: the Explosives Handling Wharf Pile Replacement Project (monitoring occurred on 14 days between August 2021 and October 2021) (Hamer Environmental, 2021), and the Service Pier B710 Pile Replacement Project (monitoring occurred on 4 days between December 2021 and January 2022) (Sandoval
There is a Biologically Important Area (BIA) for migrating gray whales in the inland waters of Puget Sound from January through July and October through December and for feeding gray whales between March and May (Calambokidis
Between 2019 and 2023, there was an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for gray whales occurring along the West Coast from Mexico through Alaska. While most of the strandings associated with this UME have been documented along Washington's Pacific coast, 14 gray whale strandings have been reported in inland waters between February and July, 2 of which were reported near NS Everett (May 2019 and April 2020); one at the mouth of Hood Canal (May 2019), and one near NBK Bremerton (March 2021). Additionally, a gray whale spent several weeks in Dyes Inlet near NBK Bremerton in April and May 2023 and subsequently stranded near Olympia, Washington in June of that year. Gray whales are rarely sighted in Hood Canal south of the Hood Canal Bridge, including a stranded whale at Belfair State Park (Orca Network, 2022).
Gray whales are expected to occur in the waters surrounding all four installations. However, gray whales are expected to occur primarily from March through June when in-water construction will not occur. Therefore, although some exposure to individual gray whales could occur at the four facilities, project timing will help to minimize potential exposures.
On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the once single species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS) under the ESA, removed the species-level listing as endangered, and, in its place, listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There are four DPSs in the North Pacific, including Western North Pacific and Central America, which are listed as endangered, Mexico, which is listed as threatened, and Hawaii, which is not listed.
The 2022 Pacific SARs described a revised stock structure for humpback whales which modifies the previous stocks designated under the MMPA to align more closely with the ESA-designated DPSs (Caretta
The Hawai'i stock consists of one demographically independent population (DIP)—Hawai'i—Southeast Alaska/Northern British Columbia DIP and one unit—Hawai'i—North Pacific unit, which may or may not be composed of multiple DIPs (Wade
The Mexico—North Pacific unit is likely composed of multiple DIPs, based on movement data (Martien
Within U.S. west coast waters, three current DPSs may occur: The Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America DPS (endangered). According to Wade
Humpback whales have been reported in the Puget Sound during every month in 2022 (Orca Network, 2023). Most humpback whale sightings reported since 2003 were in the main basin of Puget Sound with numerous sightings in the waters between Point No Point and Whidbey Island, Possession Sound, and southern Puget Sound in the vicinity of Point Defiance. Some of the reported sightings were in the vicinity of NS Everett and NBK Manchester. A few sightings of possible humpback whales were reported by Orca Network in the waters near NBK Bremerton and between January 2003 and December 2015. Humpback whales were sighted in the vicinity of Manette Bridge in Bremerton in March and May 2016, and May 2017 (Orca Network, 2017), and a carcass was found under a dock at NBK Bremerton in June 2016 (Cascadia Research, 2016).
In Hood Canal, single humpback whales were observed for several weeks in 2012 and in 2015 (Orca Network, 2022). Multiple sightings in Hood Canal were reported in June 2019, February through May 2020, and August 2021 (Orca Network, 2022). Prior to the 2012 sightings, there were no confirmed reports of humpback whales entering Hood Canal (Orca Network, 2022).
Humpback whales were not observed by protected species observers (PSOs) during monitoring completed for Navy construction projects at NBK Bangor (DoN, 2021; DoN, 2022; Hamer Environmental, 2021; Sandoval
Sightings of minke whales in Puget Sound are infrequent, with approximately 14 opportunistic sightings recorded south of the Admiralty Inlet between 2005 and 2012, from March through October. In recent years (2022 and 2023), possible sightings of a single minke whale have been reported near NBK Bangor in September and October (the Orca Network 2022 and 2023), and in 2021 and 2022, a few minke whale sightings were reported south of Whidbey Island by the Pacific Whale Watch Association (Gless and Krieger, 2023). However, minke whales were not observed by PSOs during monitoring completed for Navy construction projects at NBK Bangor (DoN, 2021; DoN, 2022; Hamer Environmental, 2021; Sandoval
Groups of transient killer whales were observed for lengthy periods in Hood Canal in 2003 (59 days) and 2005 (172 days) (London, 2006), but were not observed again until 2016, when they were seen on a handful of days between March and May (including in Dabob Bay). Transient killer whales were observed by PSOs in December 2020 and December 2021 during construction at NBK Bangor (DoN, 2021; DoN, 2022). Transient killer whales have been seen infrequently near NBK Bremerton, including in Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet (
West Coast transient killer whales most often travel in small pods averaging four individuals (Baird and Dill, 1996); however, the most commonly observed group size in Puget Sound (waters east of Admiralty Inlet, including Hood Canal, through South Puget Sound and north to Skagit Bay) from 2004 to 2010 was 6 whales (Houghton
Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) are expected to occur occasionally in the waters surrounding all of the installations except those in Hood Canal, where they have not been reported since 1995 (NMFS, 2006; 86 FR 41668, August 2, 2021). SRKW are rare near NBK Bremerton, with the last confirmed sighting in Dyes Inlet in 1997. Southern residents have been observed in Saratoga Passage and Possession Sound near NS Everett. SRKW were not observed by PSOs during construction activities occurring at NBK Manchester (Sandoval and Johnson, 2021) and NBK Bangor (DoN, 2021; DoN, 2022; Hamer Environmental, 2021; Sandoval
The stock contains three pods (J, K, and L pods), with pod sizes ranging from approximately 16 (in K pod) to 34 (in L pod) individuals. Group sizes encountered can be smaller or larger if pods temporarily separate or join together.
Critical habitat for SRKW, designated pursuant to the ESA and revised in 2018 (80 FR 9366, March 5, 2018) includes three specific areas: (1) Summer core area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands; (2) Puget Sound; and (3) Strait of Juan de Fuca. The primary constituent elements essential for conservation of the habitat are: (1) Water quality to support growth and development; (2) Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and development, as well as overall population growth; and (3) Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging. The Puget Sound segment of the designated critical habitat for SRKW is defined as the area south of the Deception Pass Bridge, west of the entrance to Admiralty Inlet, and north of the Hood Canal Bridge. Although the three naval installations that fall within this area are excluded from the area designated as Critical Habitat under the ESA, they do contain the aforementioned Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs). However, we note that water quality and habitat for prey species is generally degraded in the vicinity of these industrial environments relative to other areas contacting the PCEs that may be less impacted (see Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section). SRKW have been observed in this area in all seasons but most occurrence here (especially the J pod) typically correlates with fall salmon runs (NMFS 2006).
Dall's porpoise are known to occur in Puget Sound, and have been sighted as far south as Carr Inlet in southern Puget Sound and as far north as Saratoga Passage, north of NS Everett (Nysewander
Sightings of harbor porpoise in Hood Canal north of the Hood Canal Bridge have increased in recent years (Evenson
Information is available on harbor porpoise occurrence in Puget Sound (Navy, 2019; Smultea
PSOs associated with a service pier extension project at NBK Bangor monitored for 95 days between July 16, 2020 and January 13, 2021. Harbor porpoise were observed each month during the monitoring period, with peak numbers recorded in August. A total of 420 sightings of harbor porpoise groups were recorded during this time (DoN, 2021). The closest harbor porpoises came to the project site during pile driving operations was 75 m. Harbor porpoise were also observed during year 2 of this project, which took place on 32 days between October 19, 2021 and January 14, 2022. Groups of harbor porpoise were observed on 12 occasions in October, December and January (DoN, 2022); Sightings were estimated to be 8,000 m from the project site during pile driving operations. However, porpoise sightings were notably absent in a 21 square kilometers (km
At NBK Manchester, a total of 17 harbor porpoise were detected by PSOs associated with a fender pile replacement project at Manchester Fuel Depot on 11 days between September 28, 2021 and December 10, 2021 (Sandoval and Johnson, 2022).
Finally, monitoring reports are not available for NS Everett, but according to the Navy's application, harbor porpoises have been observed infrequently at this installation. See IHA application).
California sea lions are typically present most of the year except for mid-June through July in Washington inland waters, with peak abundance between October and April (Navy, 2023). During summer months and associated breeding periods, the inland waters are not considered a high-use area by California sea lions, as they would be returning to rookeries in California waters. However, as described below, surveys at the naval installations indicate that a few individuals may remain year-round (Navy, 2023).
The Navy conducts surveys at its installations in Puget Sound that have sea lion haulouts. Specifically, California sea lion haul-outs occur at NBK Bangor, NBK Bremerton, and NS Everett (though California sea lions may haul out opportunistically at any location). California sea lions have been documented during shore-based surveys at NBK Bangor in Hood Canal since 2008 in all survey months, with as many as 320 individuals observed at one time (October 2018) hauled out on submarines at Delta Pier and on Port Security Barrier (PSB) floats (Navy, 2023). Additionally, California sea lions were observed consistently at NBK Bangor during Navy construction projects: 557 California Sea Lions were observed across 99 days between July 2020 and January 2021 (DoN, 2021); 57 were observed across 32 days between October 2021 and January 2022 (DoN, 2022); 44 California Sea Lions were observed across 14 days between August 2021 and October 2021 (Hamer Environmental, 2021); and 3 were observed across 4 days between December 2021 and January 2022, (Sandoval
California sea lions have been documented on PSB floats during shore- and boat-based surveys at NBK Bremerton since 2010, with as many as 412 individuals hauled out at one time (October 2019) (Navy, 2023).
California sea lions have been documented during shore-based surveys at NS Everett from 2012 to 2022 in all survey months, with as many as 267 individuals hauled out at one time (April 2020) on PSB floats.
California sea lions haul out on floating platforms in Clam Bay approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) offshore from the Manchester Fuel Depot's finger pier, and approximately 13 km (8 mi) from NBK Bremerton. PSO's observed a total of 276 California Sea Lions at NBK Manchester across 11 monitoring days occurring between September and December 2021 (Sandoval and Johnson, 2021).
The Navy conducted surveys of sea lions on the floats from 2012 through 2016, and 2018 through 2022. In 2020, the surveys were expanded to include Orchard Rocks, a haulout approximately 0.8 mi (1.3 km) northeast of Manchester Fuel Depot that is available at lower tides. Between 2012 and 2016, California sea lions were observed in every survey month except July and August, with as many as 130 individuals present in one survey in October 2014. Aerial surveys were conducted by WDFW from March-April 2013, July-August 2013, November 2013, and February 2014. These surveys detected California sea lions on the floating platforms during all survey months except July, with up to 54 individuals present on one survey in November 2013. In 2018, the number of sea lions decreased corresponding to the removal of floats. Numbers subsequently increased following the reintroduction of floats in 2021. During this time, California sea lions were observed on the floating platforms during all survey months except July, with up to 212 individuals present on 1 survey in February 2022.
California sea lions are expected to be exposed to noise from project activities at NBK's Bangor, Bremerton, Manchester, and NS Everett because haul-outs are at these installations or nearby. Exposure is estimated to occur primarily from August through the end of the in-water work window in mid-January or mid-February.
Steller sea lions have been seasonally documented in shore-based surveys at NBK Bangor in Hood Canal since 2008
Steller sea lions have not been detected during shore-based surveys at NBK Bremerton since the surveys were initiated in 2010 (Navy, 2023). A Steller sea lion was sighted on a float on the floating security barrier during a vessel survey in 2012 (Lance, 2012 personal communication) and others were detected during aerial surveys conducted by WDFW (Jeffries, 2000).
Steller sea lions haul out on floating platforms in Clam Bay approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) offshore from the NBK Manchester finger pier, and approximately 8 mi (13 km) from NBK Bremerton. The number of Steller sea lions in the vicinity of NBK Manchester is limited by the variable size and availability of floating platforms in Clam Bay. As discussed above, the Navy has conducted surveys of sea lions on the floats since November 2012; however, no surveys were conducted September 2013 through November 2013 and July 2017 through June 2018 (Navy, 2023). Steller sea lions were seen in all surveyed months except for June, July, and August with as many as 43 individuals present in September 2021.
Shore-based surveys conducted since July 2012 at NS Everett have rarely detected Steller sea lions. However, occasional observations have been reported from the PSB or in the Notch Basin, generally one at a time (Navy, 2023). Other than these detections on the installation's PSBs, the nearest known Steller sea lion haulout is 14 mi (23 km) away; therefore, Steller sea lions are expected to be a rare occurrence in waters off this installation during pile driving activities.
Harbor seals in Washington inland waters have been divided into three stocks: Hood Canal, Northern Inland Waters, and Southern Puget Sound. The range of the northern inland waters stock includes Puget Sound north of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, while the southern Puget Sound stock range includes waters south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Therefore, animals present at NBK Bremerton, NBK Manchester, and NS Everett are most likely to be from the northern inland waters stock, while those present at NBK Bangor are expected to be from the Hood Canal stock.
Harbor seals are expected to occur year-round at all installations with the greatest numbers expected at installations with nearby haulout sites. In Hood Canal, where NBK Bangor is located, known haulouts occur on the west side of Hood Canal at the mouth of the Dosewallips River and on the western and northern shorelines in Dabob Bay located approximately 8.1 mi (13 km) away. Vessel-based surveys conducted from 2007 to 2010 at NBK Bangor observed harbor seals in every month of surveys (Agness & Tannenbaum, 2009; Tannenbaum
At NS Everett, Navy surveys were conducted regularly between 2012 and 2016, and again beginning in 2019, at which point surveys were expanded to include the entire East Waterway. The largest number of harbor seals observed in a single survey was 578 individuals in September 2019 (Navy, 2023). However, log rafts were removed from the East Waterway in the spring of 2022 and number of seals observed per survey has decreased. Harbor seals occupy the waters and haulout sites near NS Everett year-round. Harbor seal abundance is highest July through October. Mother pup pairs have been observed at NS Everett each summer since 2018, with a peak count of 96 pups observed in August 2021.
No haulouts have been identified at NBK Bremerton or Manchester. Single harbor seals have been observed swimming in these areas or hauled out on nearby rocks or on floats. The nearest documented haulouts to NBK Bremerton are across Sinclair Inlet, approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) away, and according to the Navy's application, is estimated to have less than 100 individuals (see IHA application). The nearest documented haulout to NBK Manchester is Orchard Rocks Conservation Area in Rich Passage, approximately 1.0 mi away. As discussed above, the Navy began surveying this area in June 2020, which has led to a dramatic increase in the number of harbor seals observed in proximity to Manchester Fuel Depot. A total of 25 harbor seals were observed by PSOs across 11 monitoring days occurring between September and December 2021 at this Naval installation (Sandoval and Johnson, 2021). The Navy has counted up to 153 harbor seals hauled-out and in the water near Orchard Rocks in June (Navy, 2023). Blakely Rocks is another known haulout in the vicinity of NBK Manchester, located approximately 3.5 mi away on the east side of Bainbridge Island. The haulout at Blakely Rocks is estimated to have less than 100 individuals (Jeffries, 2012 personal communication).
No haul-outs occur in Puget Sound with the exception of individual elephant seals occasionally hauling out for two to four weeks to molt, usually during the spring and summer and typically on sandy beaches (Calambokidis and Baird, 1994). These animals are usually yearlings or subadults and their haul-out locations are unpredictable. One male subadult elephant seal was observed hauled out to molt at Manchester Fuel Depot in 2004 and a northern elephant seal was observed north of NBK Bangor in Hood Canal, from Kitsap Memorial Park in August 2020 (DoN, 2021). Northern elephant seals were not observed by PSOs during the Navy's other construction activities occurring at NBK Bangor (Hamer Environmental, 2021; Sandoval
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity can occur from impact pile driving, and vibratory pile driving and removal in both years, and the use of DTH equipment in year 1 only. These effects may result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals in the project area.
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10 to 20 dB from day to day (Richardson
In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, and use of DTH equipment (year 1 only). The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (
Three types of hammers would be used on this project: impact, vibratory, and DTH (year 1 only). Impact hammers
A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic) component integrated into to the DTH hammer to increase speed of progress through the substrate (
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal and DTH equipment is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the Navy's specified activities. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience behavioral, physiological, and/or physical effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin (
Activities for this project include impact and vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and DTH drilling. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and the fact that many marine mammals are likely moving through the project areas and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Respiration naturally varies with different behaviors, and variations in respiration rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies also have shown that species and signal characteristics are important factors in whether respiration rates are unaffected or change, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales (
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
To assess the strength of behavioral changes and responses to external sounds and SPLs associated with changes in behavior, Southall
The Navy documented marine mammals during construction activities at NBK Manchester (September 28 and December 10, 2021) and NBK Bangor (2021 and 2022) during work that preceded these proposed IHAs as well as during the installation of a service pier. Harbor seals were consistently the most frequently observed marine mammal in the area observed by PSOs. During pile driving activities at these installations, harbor seals were most commonly observed typically traveling and swimming, though some behaviors recorded during pile driving activities indicated that harbor seals were aware of the construction, such as less foraging reported and looking at the construction site or startling. Likewise California sea lions were observed traveling and swimming during pile driving activities, but in a couple instances were observed porpoising or breaching. Harbor porpoises were observed traveling, milling, porpoising and a gray whale was observed slow and fast traveling and milling. At NBK Bangor, a total of three harbor seals were observed foraging, socializing, feeding (when fish kills were apparent) during impact pile driving. Behavior changes noted during pile driving included startle responses, splashing, swimming in circles, re-entering water after being hauled out and looking in all directions and swimming fast.
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
The Navy's construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project areas (see discussion below). During DTH, impact and vibratory pile driving or removal, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify a portion of Puget Sound (Year 1 and Year 2) and Hood Canal (Year 2 only) where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during construction, however, displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term effects to the individuals or populations. Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater sound.
A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are installed and removed. In general, turbidity associated with the pile installation is localized to about 25-ft (7.6 m) radius around the pile (Everitt
Avoidance by potential prey (
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (
Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen
The most likely impact to fishes from pile driving activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the expected short daily duration of individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being affected. It is also not expected that the industrial environment of the Navy installations provides important fish habitat or harbors significant amount of forage fish.
The area likely impacted by the activities is relatively small compared to the available habitat in inland waters in the region. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. As described in the preceding, the potential for Navy construction to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be insignificant. Effects to habitat will not be discussed further in this document.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHAs, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
The Navy's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and removal and DTH drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving and DTH drilling) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa is applicable, respectively.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss (TL) coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
The project includes vibratory pile installation and removal, impact pile driving, and DTH drilling in year 1 and vibratory pile installation and removal and impact pile driving in year 2. Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each pile size and activity each year are presented in table 6. Source levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same.
NMFS recommends treating DTH systems as both impulsive and continuous, non-impulsive sound source type simultaneously. Thus, impulsive thresholds are used to evaluate Level A harassment, and continuous thresholds are used to evaluate Level B harassment. With regards to DTH mono-hammers, NMFS recommends proxy levels for Level A harassment based on available data
The Navy proposed to use bubble curtains when impact driving steel piles (relevant to Year 2 activities only). For the reasons described in the next paragraph, we assume here that use of the bubble curtain would result in a reduction of 8 dB from the assumed SPL (rms) and SPL (peak) source levels for these pile sizes, and reduce the applied source levels accordingly.
During the 2023 study at NBK Bremerton, the Navy conducted comparative measurements of source levels when impact driving steel piles with and without a bubble curtain. Underwater sound levels were measured at two locations during the installation of one 24-in diameter steel pile and four 36-in steel piles. The bubble curtain used during the measurements reduced median peak sound levels by between 8 and 12 dB, median RMS sound levels by 10 and 12 dB, and median single strike SEL sound levels by 7 and 8 dB. The analysis included in the proposed rule for the regulations preceding these IHAs (83 FR 9366, March 5, 2018) as well as results from the NBK Bangor Trident Support Facilities Explosive Handling Wharf study (Navy 2013), are consistent with these findings. While proper set-up and operation of the system is critical, and variability in performance should be expected, we believe that in the circumstances evaluated here an effective attenuation performance of 8 dB is a reasonable assumption.
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured TL, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the TL coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific TL data for the Puget Sound are not available; therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting estimated isopleths, are reported below.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information that will inform the take calculations.
Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the vicinity of the four installations includes density information aggregated in the Navy's Marine Mammal Species Density Database (NMSDD; Navy, 2019) or site-specific survey information from particular installations (
All species described above are considered as rare, unpredictably occurring species. A density-based analysis is used for harbor porpoise (table 10), while data from site-specific abundance surveys are used for California sea lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal at all installations. One exception is that for Steller sea lion at NBK Bremerton, a density-based analysis is used because local data have resulted in no observations of this species (Navy, 2023).
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
To quantitatively assess exposure of marine mammals to noise from pile driving activities, the Navy proposed three methods, to be used depending on the species' assumed spatial and temporal occurrence. For species with rare or infrequent occurrence at a given installation during the in-water work window, the likelihood of interaction was reviewed on the basis of past records of occurrence (described in Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities) and the potential maximum duration of work days at each installation, as well as total work days for all installations. Occurrence of the species in this category [
For species that occur regularly but for which site-specific abundance information is not available, density estimates (table 10) were used to determine the number of animals potentially exposed on any one day of pile driving or removal. The calculation for density-based analysis of species with regular occurrence is:
For remaining species, site-specific abundance information (
It is important to note that the Navy proposes to implement a shutdown of pile driving activity if any large whale is observed within any defined harassment zone (see Proposed Mitigation). Therefore, the proposed IHA is intended to provide insurance against the event that whales occur within Level B harassment zones that cannot be fully observed by monitors. As a result of this proposed mitigation, we do not believe that Level A harassment is a likely outcome upon occurrence of any large whale. The calculated Level A harassment zone is a maximum of 374 m for DTH installation of 24-in concrete piles in year 1 and 542 m for impact installation of 36-in steel piles with a bubble curtain in year, and this requires that a whale be present at that range for the full duration of 1,000 pile strikes. Given the Navy's commitment to shut down upon observation of a large whale in any harassment zone, and the likelihood that the presence of a large whale in the vicinity of any Navy installation would be known due to reporting via Orca Network, we do not expect that any whale would be present within a Level A harassment zone for sufficient duration to actually experience PTS.
Killer Whales—For transient killer whales, the proposed take authorization is derived via the same process described above for large whales: we assume an average group size of six whales occurring for a period of 2 days. The resulting total proposed authorization of take by Level B harassment of 12 for transient killer whales would also account for the low probability that a larger group occurred once. For SRKW, we assume an average group size of 20 whales occurring within the Level B harassment zone on one day each year. A group of 20 SRKW closely represents the average size of the pod most likely to occur near a Navy installation (the J pod), and corresponds to 75 percent of the average of all 3 pods that make up the stock. SRKW have not been observed near naval installations during work completed previously at these installations.
Similar to large whales, the Navy plans to implement shutdown of pile driving activity at any time that any killer whale is observed within any calculated harassment zone. We expect this to minimize the extent and duration of any behavioral harassment. Given the small size of calculated Level A harassment zones—maximum of 13 m for DTH in year 1, and 20 m for the worst-case scenario of impact-driven 36-in steel piles with a bubble curtain—we do not anticipate any potential for Level A harassment of killer whales.
Dall's Porpoise—We assume rare and infrequent occurrence of Dall's porpoise at all installations. If observed, they typically occur in groups of five (Smultea
The Navy plans to implement shutdown of pile driving activity at any time if a Dall's porpoise is observed in the Level A harassment zone. The calculated Level A harassment zone is as large as 445 m for DTH of 24-in concrete in year 1 and as large as 646 m for impact driving of 36-in steel piles with a bubble curtain in year 2. Take by level A harassment would require that a porpoise be present at that range for the full duration of 1,000 pile strikes. Given the rarity of Dall's porpoise in the area, the Navy's commitment to shut down upon observation of a porpoise within the Level A harassment zone, and the likelihood that a porpoise would engage in aversive behavior prior to experiencing PTS, we do not expect that any porpoise would be present within a Level A harassment zone for sufficient duration to actually experience PTS.
Harbor Porpoise—Level B exposure estimates for harbor porpoise were calculated for each installation each year using the appropriate density given in table 10, the largest appropriate ZOI for each pile type, and the appropriate number of construction days.
•
•
•
•
The Navy plans to implement shutdown of pile driving activity at any time if a harbor porpoise is observed in the Level A harassment zone. As a result of this proposed mitigation, we do not believe that Level A harassment is a likely outcome. There are two instances where the Level A harassment zone may extend beyond a distance where harbor porpoise may reliably be detected by PSOs. In Year 1, the Level A harassment zone is 445 m during DTH drilling of 24-in concrete at NBK Manchester. In Year 2, the Level A harassment zone is 645 m during impact driving of 36-in steel piles with a bubble curtain at NBK Bangor. However, Rone et al. (2024) reported a notable absence of harbor porpoise within 21 km
Across all installations, we propose to authorize 794 takes by Level B harassment of harbor porpoise in year 1 and 1,157 takes by Level B harassment of harbor porpoise in year 2.
Steller Sea Lion—Level B harassment estimates for Steller sea lions were calculated for each installation using the appropriate density given in table 10 or
•
•
•
•
Given the small size of calculated Level A harassment zones—maximum of 15 m for the worst-case scenario of DTH-installed 24-in concrete piles in year 1 and maximum of 21 m for the worst-case scenario of impact-driven 36-in steel piles with the use of a bubble curtain in year 2—we do not anticipate any potential for Level A harassment of Steller sea lions.
Across all installations we propose to authorize take by 231 takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lion in year 1 and 287 takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lions in year 2.
•
•
•
•
Given the small size of calculated Level A harassment zones—maximum of 15 m for the worst-case scenario of DTH-installed 24-in concrete piles in year 1 and maximum of 21 m for the worst-case scenario of impact-driven 36-in steel piles with the use of a bubble curtain in year 2—we do not anticipate any potential for Level A harassment of California sea lions.
Across all installations we propose to authorize 3,926 takes by Level B harassment of California sea lions in year 1 and 3,636 takes by Level B harassment of California sea lions in year 2.
Harbor seals are expected to be the most abundant marine mammal at all installations, often occurring in and around existing in-water structures in a way that may restrict observers' ability to adequately observe seals and subsequently implement shutdowns. In addition, the calculated Level A harassment zones are significantly larger than those for sea lions, which may also be abundant at various installations at certain times of year. For harbor seals in year 1, the largest calculated Level A harassment zone is 200 m (compared with a maximum zone of 15 m for sea lions), calculated for the worst-case scenario of DTH-installed 24-in concrete piles (other scenarios range from 5-75 m). In year 2, the largest calculated Level A harassment zone is 290 m (compared with a maximum zone of 21 m for sea lions), calculated for the worst-case scenario of impact-driven 36-in steel piles with the use of a bubble curtain (other scenarios range from 1-21 m). Therefore, we assume that some Level A harassment is likely to occur for harbor seals and provide installation-specific estimates below.
•
The Level A harassment zone expected to occur during impact installation of 36-in steel at NBK Bangor is 290 m. Since the Navy plans to maintain a shutdown zone of at 180 m (see table 13), the Navy estimates and NMFS agrees that one seal per day (n = 20) could remain within the calculated Level A harassment zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in PTS. As such, we propose to authorize 20 incidents of take by Level A harassment.
•
In year 1, the Level A harassment zone expected to occur during impact installation of 18-in steel at NBK Bremerton is 39 m and the Level A harassment zone expected to occur during impact installation of 24-in steel is 73 m. Although the Navy plans to shut down at distances slightly larger than these Level A harassment zones (see table 12), the Navy assumes and NMFS agrees that it is possible that one seal per day could go unobserved and remain within the calculated zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in PTS. As such, we propose to authorize 20 takes by Level A harassment. In year 2, the largest Level A harassment zone is much smaller (<10 m) and as such we do not expect take by Level A harassment to occur and we do not propose to authorize such take.
•
The Level A harassment zone expected to occur during DTH installation of 24-in concrete at NBK Manchester is 200 m. Since the Navy plans to shut down at 150 m due to practicability concerns (see table 12), the Navy assumes and NMFS agrees that one seal per day (n = 37) could remain within the calculated zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in PTS. As such, we propose to authorize 37 incidents of take by Level A harassment.
•
The largest Level A harassment zone expected to occur at NS Everett is 21 m and the Navy plans to shut down at this distance should a harbor seal be observed entering or within this zone. As such we do not expect take by Level A harassment to occur and we do not propose to authorize such take here.
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the potential for PTS closer to the source might also be behaviorally disturbed, however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not count those exposures of one individual as both a Level A harassment take and a Level B harassment take, and therefore takes by Level B harassment calculated as described above are further modified to deduct the proposed amount of take by Level A harassment. Therefore, in year 1, across all installations, NMFS proposes to authorize 57 takes by Level A harassment and 432 takes by Level B harassment for harbor seal, for a total of 489 takes. In year 2, across all installations, NMFS proposes to authorize 20 takes by Level A harassment and 2,752 takes by Level B harassment for harbor seal, for a total of 2,772 takes.
The total proposed take authorization for all species each year is summarized in table 11 below. No authorization of take by Level A harassment is proposed for authorization except a total of 57 such incidents for harbor seals in year 1 and 20 such incidents for harbor seals in year 2.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
On a daily basis, in-water construction activities would occur only during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) except from July 16 to September 15, when impact pile driving would only occur starting 2 hours after sunrise and ending 2 hours before sunset in order to protect marbled murrelets (
Finally, construction activities would be halted upon observation of a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met entering or within the harassment zone.
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, PSOs record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The PSO's location and the location of the pile being driven are known, and the location of the animal may be estimated as a distance from the observer and then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational data, and a precise accounting of observed incidents of harassment created.
The Navy also plans to take measures to ensure that killer whales and large cetaceans (
To avoid loss of attenuation from design and implementation errors, the Navy will require specific bubble curtain design specifications, including testing requirements for air pressure and flow at each manifold ring prior to initial impact hammer use, and a requirement for placement on the substrate. The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column. The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline contact. The contractor shall also train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and must submit an inspection/performance report to the Navy for approval within 72 hours following the performance test. Corrections to the noise attenuation device to meet the performance standards shall occur prior to use for impact driving.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
• PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor), and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;
• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator will be designated. The lead observer will be required to have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization; and
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to each IHA.
PSOs should also have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including, but not limited to, the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was note implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
Visual monitoring will be conducted by a minimum of three trained PSOs positioned at suitable vantage points practicable (
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, PSOs will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and will document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
The Navy plans to conduct hydroacoustic monitoring for a subset of impact-driven steel piles for projects including more than three piles where a bubble curtain is used (relevant to year 2 project activities only).
The Navy will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The marine mammal monitoring report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report will include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including: (1) The number and type of piles that were driven and the method (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: (1) Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3) Identification of the animal(s) (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of the draft report, the report will be considered final. All PSO data would be submitted electronically in a format that can be queried such as a spreadsheet or database and would be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Holder must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 3, given that many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving activities associated with the maintenance projects, as described previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only (for all species other than harbor seal) from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individual marine mammals are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No serious injury or mortality would be expected even in the absence of the proposed mitigation measures. For all species other than the harbor seal, no Level A harassment is anticipated given the nature of the activities,
As described previously, there are multiple species that are considered rare in the proposed project areas and for which we propose to authorize limited take, by Level B harassment, of a single group for a minimal period of time in each authorization year (one or two days).
ESA critical habitat for southern resident killer whale occurs in Puget Sound (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section of this notice). NMFS did not identify in-water sound levels as a separate essential feature of critical habitat, though anthropogenic sound is recognized as one of the primary threats to SRKW (NMFS 2019). The exposure of SRKW to sound from the proposed activities would be minimized by the required proposed mitigation measures (
Puget Sound is part of a BIA for migrating gray whales (Calambokidis
Aside from the SRKW critical habitat and BIA for gray whales, there are no known important areas for other marine mammals, such as feeding or pupping areas. Therefore, we do not expect meaningful impacts to these species (
For remaining species (harbor porpoise, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal), we discuss the likely effects of the specified activities in greater detail. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
The Navy has conducted multi-year activities potentially affecting marine mammals, and typically involving greater or similar levels of activity than is contemplated here in various locations such as San Diego Bay and some of the installations considered herein (NBK Bangor, NBK Bremerton, NBK Manchester). Reporting from these activities has similarly reported no apparently consequential behavioral reactions or long-term effects on marine mammal populations (Lerma, 2014; Navy, 2016; Sandoval
In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level B harassment, we anticipate that harbor seals may sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury at two installations in year 1 (NBK Bremerton and NBK Manchester) and one installation in year 2 (NBK Bangor), assuming they remain within a given distance of the pile driving activity for the full number of pile strikes. However, seals in these locations that experience PTS would likely only receive slight PTS,
The pile driving activities are also not expected to have significant adverse effects on these affected marine mammals' habitats. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected (with no known particular importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on individuals that will not have any bearing on those individuals' fitness. Thus the specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore have a negligible impact on those species or stocks.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
• The additional impact of PTS of a slight degree to few individual harbor seals at two locations in year 1 and one location in year 2 is not anticipated to increase individual impacts to a point where any population-level impacts might be expected;
• The absence of any significant habitat within the industrialized project areas, including known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; and
• The presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable adverse impact.
• Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts on their populations from either project;
• The ensonifed areas from both projects are very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and will not cause more than minor impacts in any ESA-designated critical habitat, BIAs or any other areas of known biological importance.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity, specific to each of the Year 1 and Year 2 IHAs, will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is less than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
We propose to authorize incidental take of 14 marine mammal stocks each project year (table 11). The total amount of taking proposed for authorization is less than 1 percent for eight of these stocks in year 1 and year 2, equal or less than 10 percent for an additional four stocks in year 1 and three stocks in year 2, and equal or less than 27 percent for another stock in year 1 and three stocks in year 2, all of which we consider relatively small percentages and thus small numbers of marine mammals relative to the estimated overall population abundances for those stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds, for each of the Year 1 and Year 2 IHAs, that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of SRKW, as well as two DPSs of humpback whale (Central American/Southern Mexico—California—Oregon—Washington and Mainland Mexico—California—Oregon—Washington), which are listed under the ESA.
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the NMFS West Coast Region for the issuance of these IHAs. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue two consecutive IHAs to the Navy for conducting the NAVFAC NW MPR Project in Puget Sound, Washington between July 2024 and July 2025, and July 2025 and July 2026, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorizations, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHAs for the proposed construction project. We also request comment on the potential renewal of these proposed IHAs as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for each IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of the Advisory Committee 2024 spring meeting.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) announces its annual spring meeting, to be held April 30-May 1, 2024 in Miami, Florida.
The open sessions of the Committee meeting will be held on April 30, 2024, 8:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. and May 1, 2024, 10:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. Closed sessions will be held on April 30, 2024, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on May 1, 2024, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. All times are Eastern Daylight Savings time.
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott Miami Coconut Grove, 2649 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33133.
Bryan Keller, Office of International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce, (301) 427-7725 or at
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet in open session to receive and discuss information on the outcomes of ICCAT's 2023 annual meeting and the U.S. implementation of ICCAT decisions; ICCAT intersessional meetings in 2024; relevant NMFS research and monitoring activities; the results of the meetings of the Committee's Species Working Groups; and other matters relating to the international management of ICCAT species. The public will have access to the open sessions of the meeting, but there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. An agenda is available from the Committee's Executive Secretary upon request (see
The Committee will meet in its Species Working Groups in closed session in the afternoon of April 30, 2024, and in the morning of May 1, 2024. These sessions are not open to the public, but the results of the Species Working Group discussions will be reported to the full Advisory Committee during the Committee's open session on May 1, 2024.
The meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Bryan Keller (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is holding three regional workshops to hear and discuss feedback from the public to inform development of its Atlantic Cod Management Transition Plan. Workshop summaries will be presented at a future Council meeting.
These meetings will be held between the dates of Tuesday, April 30, 2024, and Thursday, May 2, 2024. See
See
Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, New
1.
2.
3.
The Council is holding three regional workshops to identify challenges and develop alternatives for addressing Atlantic cod management considering the new biological stock units. The Council is conducting these workshops to collect important feedback from fishing industry members and other stakeholders. The workshops are a platform for discussions and gathering different perspectives. A summary report of the workshops will be provided to the Council to help inform the development of its Atlantic Cod Management Transition Plan. For more details, see the Council's web page:
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues this guidance to inform practitioners and the public of the important issues that patent and trademark professionals, innovators, and entrepreneurs must navigate while using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in matters before the USPTO. The USPTO recognizes the possibility that AI will be used to prepare and prosecute patent and trademark applications, as well as other filings before the Office including filings submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). While the USPTO is committed to maximizing AI's benefits and seeing them distributed broadly across society, the USPTO recognizes the need, through technical mitigations and human governance, to cabin the risks arising from the use of AI in practice before the USPTO. At this time, based on the USPTO's engagement with stakeholders through the USPTO's AI and Emerging Technologies (ET) Partnership (AI/ET Partnership) and a review of existing rules, the USPTO has determined that existing rules protect the USPTO's ecosystem against such potential perils. This guidance reminds individuals involved in proceedings before the USPTO of the pertinent rules and policies, helps inform those same individuals of the risks associated with the use of AI systems, and provides suggestions to mitigate those risks. The USPTO will continue to engage with the public, including through the AI/ET Partnership, as the use of AI advances and evolves.
This guidance on the use of AI in practicing before the USPTO is applicable as of April 11, 2024.
For patent matters contact Matthew Sked, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7627 or Nalini Mummalaneni, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-270-1647, both with the Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents.
For matters regarding the PTAB contact Michael W. Kim, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, or Charles J. Boudreau, Lead Administrative Patent Judge, at 571-272-9797.
For trademark matters contact Robert J. Lavache, Senior Trademark Legal Policy Advisor, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, at 571-272-5881.
For matters regarding the TTAB contact Cheryl A. Butler, Senior Counsel and Editor of the Trademark Board Manual of Procedure, at 571-272-4259.
Recognizing that “[r]esponsible AI use has the potential to help solve urgent challenges while making our world more prosperous, productive, innovative, and secure,” while “[a]t the same time, irresponsible use could exacerbate societal harms such as fraud, discrimination, bias, and disinformation; displace and disempower workers; stifle competition; and pose risks to national security,” President Biden issued the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence on October 30, 2023 (“Executive Order”).
As we see AI being increasingly integrated with and deployed into a variety of sectors including finance, manufacturing, healthcare, and transportation,
These tools have the potential to lower the barriers and costs of practicing before the Office as well as helping law practitioners offer services to their clients with improved quality and efficiency. As the use of AI continues to grow in the IP community, however, it is essential to address the legal and ethical considerations that arise with the use of these technologies. Some of these considerations were discussed in a panel on practitioners' use of AI at the AI/ET Partnership event, “AI tools and data,” held at the USPTO on September 27, 2023.
Incomplete or inaccurate outputs by AI, which, when not thoroughly verified by parties and practitioners, can also result in critical misstatements and omissions. For example, legal briefs and motions, the preparation of which was assisted by AI, have included fictionalized citations and quotations, resulting in sanctions for the attorneys filing these briefs.
The legal community has recognized the need to identify and explore AI risks in legal proceedings. For example, in the 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts identified that AI has the potential to “increase access to key information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike” but comes with risks such as “invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law.”
Given the uncertainties faced by practitioners in the use of AI tools, the USPTO publishes this guidance to remind practitioners about existing rules and policies that may be relevant to the use of these tools, and to help educate practitioners on possible risks presented by the use of these tools so that practitioners can mitigate these risks. In the event of any conflict between the February 2024 Guidance and this notice, this notice controls.
This guidance is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of possible rules, policies, or issues that may arise with use of AI in matters before the USPTO. As noted above, the USPTO has separately addressed the use of AI before the office when AI is used as part of the inventive process.
This notice is organized as follows: Section II provides an overview of the USPTO's existing rules and policies. Section III describes how these existing rules and policies apply in the context of the use of AI tools in matters before the USPTO. Specifically, section III(A) discusses the use of AI systems in drafting documents for submission to the USPTO. Section III(B) addresses the filing of documents at the USPTO with the assistance of AI tools. Section III(C) discusses USPTO information technology (IT) systems and the appropriate use of AI tools in interacting with those systems. Finally, section III(D) raises confidentiality and national security concerns related to the use of AI systems.
The USPTO's rules and policies described in this guidance—including those meant to ensure full, fair and accurate disclosure to the USPTO and to protect clients of USPTO practitioners—apply broadly, regardless of any AI assistance in preparing submissions to the USPTO. These broadly applicable rules and policies help mitigate the risks of AI assistance and require practitioners and others to exercise special care when using AI as a tool in connection with USPTO practice.
Each individual associated with a proceeding at the USPTO (
Included within the duty of candor and good faith in patent proceedings is the duty of disclosure. The duty of disclosure requires that each individual identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c) disclose to the USPTO all information known to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b). While § 1.56(a) refers to the duty to disclose material information to the USPTO, the duty of candor and good faith is broader.
The duty of candor and good faith operates to achieve the important functions of safeguarding the integrity of proceedings before the USPTO and ensuring robust and reliable patents are issued. “The rules serve to remind individuals associated with the preparation and prosecution of patent applications of their duty of candor and good faith in their dealings with the Office, and will aid the Office in receiving, in a timely manner, the information it needs to carry out effective and efficient examination of patent applications.”
The duty of candor and good faith in patent proceedings extends beyond
As the duty of candor and good faith applies to all conduct before the USPTO, the duty underlies all the discussions on the use of AI systems in matters before the USPTO throughout Section III. However, the duty is explicitly referenced in Section III(A). For example, this section explains that those involved in patent proceedings have a duty to disclose all information—including on the use of AI tools by inventors, parties, and practitioners—that is material to patentability.
Generally, all patent correspondence filed in the USPTO must bear a person's signature.
Except for trademark correspondence that is required to be signed by the applicant, registrant or party to a proceeding, each piece of trademark correspondence filed in the Office by a trademark practitioner must bear a signature, personally signed or inserted by such practitioner.
By signing or presenting a piece of correspondence,
As will be discussed in Section III(B), below, the signature requirement and corresponding certifications ensure that documents drafted with the assistance of AI systems have been reviewed by a person and that person believes everything in the document is true and not submitted for an improper purpose. This issue is more fully discussed in Section III(B).
Under 37 CFR 11.106(a), “[a] practitioner shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b) of this section, or the disclosure is required by paragraph (c) of this section.” This rule requires practitioners to maintain the confidentiality of client information except in limited circumstances. This rule was amended in 2021 to bring this provision into alignment with the 2012 amendments to the ABA Model Rule 1.6.
In light of these considerations, those using AI systems in practicing before the USPTO, such as drafting applications, should be cognizant of the risks and take steps to ensure confidential information is not divulged as discussed in Section III(D).
Patent practitioners must comply with foreign filing license requirements prior to filing any patent application in a foreign country or exporting technical data for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing, and prosecution of a foreign application. In particular, under 37 CFR 5.11(a), “[a] license from the Commissioner for Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184
Practitioners are further reminded, however, that “[a] foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States.”
Practitioners must be mindful of these concerns and ensure data is not improperly exported when using AI systems as discussed in Section III(D).
In addition to the requirements set forth above, access to USPTO electronic systems is subject to a number of terms and conditions. Exceeding authorized access or violating those terms and conditions in connection with accessing USPTO electronic systems may result in criminal or civil liability under federal law (including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030) and/or state law. In addition, such conduct may result in penalties or sanctions administered by the USPTO.
The USPTO's websites provide access to a rich collection of information and services including online filing for patents and trademarks, fee handling, and search. Some of these services may require the user to create and use a dedicated account. For example, users may use the USPTO patent electronic filing system, Patent Center, to electronically file patent correspondence or view the status of, and documents filed in or associated with, patent applications and proceedings, including appeals to the PTAB with respect to such applications. In order to take advantage of all the capabilities of Patent Center, a user must be a registered user by creating a
Similarly, trademark applicants and registrants are required to electronically file trademark correspondence through the trademark electronic filing systems. Users can view the status of, and documents filed in or associated with, trademark applications and registrations in the trademark electronic filing systems. In order to take advantage of all trademark electronic systems, a user must be a registered user by creating a
Trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the TTAB are required to file submissions and correspondence electronically, currently through Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). 37 CFR 2.126(a).
Additionally, the Terms of Use apply to all USPTO websites, applications, software, and services that are intended for public use on the
Further information on USPTO's electronic system policies and how they relate to the use of AI systems in filing documents and accessing USPTO systems can be found in Sections III(B) and (C).
The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct require that a practitioner provide competent and diligent representation to a client.
In addition, 37 CFR 11.104 requires a practitioner to “reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished” and “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” A practitioner who supervises the work of other practitioners and non-practitioner assistants in representing a client is responsible for making reasonable efforts to ensure that the practitioners and non-practitioner assistants comply with the professional obligations of the practitioner or the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
When using AI tools, practitioners must ensure they are not violating the duties owed to clients as highlighted in Section III(A). For example, practitioners must have the requisite legal, scientific, and technical knowledge to reasonably represent their client.
As set forth above, parties and practitioners appearing or practicing before the USPTO (including the PTAB and TTAB), or accessing USPTO electronic resources, are subject to a number of conditions and obligations. Those conditions and obligations readily apply to situations in which the party or practitioner uses AI as a tool, as set forth in the examples below.
For years, computer tools have been ubiquitous in document drafting. Word processing software with features such as spelling and grammar check are commonplace in most industries. More recently, word processing software and other computer tools have begun adopting generative AI features that can develop a written document with much less human involvement. For example, recent tools directed to the IP industry include the ability to draft technical specifications, generate responses to Office actions, write and respond to briefs, and even draft patent claims.
The capabilities of these tools continue to grow, and there is no prohibition against using these computer tools in drafting documents for submission to the USPTO. Nor is there a general obligation to disclose to the USPTO the use of such tools.
As explained above, nearly all forms of correspondence with the USPTO must be signed. This includes documents that were drafted entirely by AI tools or drafted with the assistance of AI tools. By presenting to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) any paper, a party (
Accordingly, any paper submitted to the USPTO must be reviewed by the party or parties presenting the paper. Those parties are responsible for the contents therein. Simply relying on the accuracy of an AI tool is not a reasonable inquiry.
Upon review of the document drafted with the assistance of an AI tool, any errors or omissions in the document must be corrected. Filing a paper with the USPTO that includes erroneous facts, arguments, or authorities would not be in compliance with 37 CFR 11.18(b). Similarly, filing a paper with known material omissions in not accordance with the duty of candor and good faith. Violations of 37 CFR 11.18 could include striking the offending paper, referring the practitioner's conduct to the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline, or terminating the proceedings in the Office.
While those parties presenting a paper to the USPTO are under a duty to review the information in the paper and correct any errors, there is not presently a general duty to inform the USPTO that an AI tool was used in the drafting of the paper unless specifically requested by the USPTO.
In addition, under 37 CFR 11.104(a)(2), practitioners must reasonably consult with the client about the means by which their clients' objectives are to be accomplished.
While there is no per se requirement to notify the USPTO when AI tools are used in the invention creation process or practicing before the USPTO, applicants and practitioners should be mindful of their duty of disclosure. This is, if the use of an AI tool is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b), the use of such AI tool must be disclosed to the USPTO. For example, as discussed in more detail in the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, material information could include evidence that a named inventor did not significantly contribute to the invention because the person's purported contributions were made by an AI system.
Practitioners are also under a duty to refrain from filing or prosecuting patent claims that are known to be unpatentable. Therefore, in situations where an AI tool is used to draft patent claims, the practitioner is under a duty to modify those claims as needed to present them in patentable form before submitting them to the USPTO. In situations where the specification and/or drawings of the patent application are drafted using AI tools, practitioners need to take extra care to verify the technical accuracy of the documents and compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112. Also, when AI tools are used to produce or draft prophetic examples, appropriate care should be taken to assist the readers in differentiating these examples from actual working examples.
When AI systems are relied upon to draft or modify claims, such drafts or changes could impact inventorship or patentability (
AI systems could also be used in the submission of evidence of patentability or unpatentability (
Additionally, AI may be used to automatically populate the USPTO's PTO/SB/08 form (Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form) with citations for submission to the USPTO, and may be used to collect prior art references in the first place.
The duty of disclosure applies to the individuals identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c). This duty cannot be transferred to another person or a computer system such as an AI tool. Therefore, it is the § 1.56(c) individuals who must ensure that all material information is submitted to the USPTO. Therefore, IDSs should also be reviewed to ensure that all material information is disclosed to prevent material information from being unknowingly omitted.
Trademark and TTAB submissions generated or assisted by AI must be carefully reviewed prior to filing to ensure that the facts and statements provided are true and have appropriate evidentiary support, consistent with the requirements of 37 CFR 11.18(b). This includes any information or evidence provided in trademark applications, registration maintenance filings, and TTAB proceedings, as well as legal arguments and citations made in response to refusals and requirements in Office actions or in briefs before the TTAB, whether in appeals or trial cases. Particular care should be taken to avoid submitting any AI-generated specimens, which do not show actual use of the trademark in commerce, or any other evidence created by AI that does not actually exist in the marketplace. In addition, AI-generated material that misstates facts or law, includes irrelevant material, or includes unnecessarily cumulative material, could be construed as a paper presented for an improper purpose because it could “cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office.”
Beyond assisting with the preparation of documents, AI tools could be used to assist or automate the mechanical aspects of filing documents with the USPTO. For example, these tools could potentially autocomplete USPTO forms, access information on USPTO websites, and upload documents and other information to USPTO servers. Care should be taken by persons using such tools to ensure USPTO rules and policies are not violated.
As previously explained, nearly all forms of correspondence filed with the USPTO must bear a signature.
Another issue practitioners and others should consider when using AI tools to submit papers to the USPTO is the USPTO's policies regarding electronic filing, websites, and other services. For example, in order to submit papers to the USPTO through the Patent Center, Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), P-TACTS, or other USPTO electronic systems, a user should obtain a
While AI tools have the capabilities to access and interact with USPTO IT systems, attention should be paid to ensure the use of these tools does not run afoul of federal and state law, and USPTO regulations and policies. One important policy to note is the requirement that users must not file documents or access information for which they do not have authorization.
Users should also be extremely careful when attempting to data mine information from USPTO databases. Using computer tools, including AI systems, in a manner that generates unusually high numbers of database accesses violates the Terms of Use for USPTO websites, and users using tools in this way will be denied access to USPTO servers without notice and could be subject to applicable state criminal and civil laws.
Use of AI in practice before the USPTO can result in the inadvertent disclosure of client-sensitive or confidential information, including highly-sensitive technical information, to third parties. This can happen, for example, when aspects of an invention are input into AI systems to perform prior art searches or generate drafts of specification, claims, or responses to Office actions. AI systems may retain the information that is entered by users. This information can be used in a variety of ways by the owner of the AI system including using the data to further train its AI models or providing the data to third parties in breach of practitioners' confidentiality obligations to their clients under,
When practitioners rely on the services of a third party to develop a proprietary AI tool, store client data on third-party storage, or purchase a commercially available AI tool, practitioners must be especially vigilant to ensure that confidentiality of client data is maintained. Practitioners who supervise the work of other practitioners and non-practitioner assistants must ensure that the practitioners and staff under their supervision comply with the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct when relying on AI tools and/or AI-related third party services.
Such disclosures can also implicate national security, export control, and foreign filing license issues.
The USPTO does not tolerate fraud or intentional misconduct in any manner in a proceeding before the Office or in connection with accessing USPTO IT systems. As explained above, all individuals associated with a proceeding before the USPTO have a duty of candor and good faith. The duty extends not only to the personal actions of these individuals, but also to the actions these individuals take with any automated tools, including AI tools. Additionally, the use of AI tools on USPTO websites for the “[u]nauthorized access, actions, use, modification, or disclosure of the data contained herein or in transit to/from [USPTO web systems] constitutes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.”
This guidance on the use of AI Before the Office is not meant to be exhaustive. Those appearing before the USPTO or accessing its systems are reminded to comply with the laws, regulations, precedent, and guidance in force at the time of their dealings with the USPTO.
Department of Defense.
Notice of demonstration modifications.
The Director of the Defense Health Agency (DHA) is notifying the public of adjustments to the reimbursement and provider qualifications for childbirth support services under the Childbirth and Breastfeeding Support Demonstration (CBSD).
The Phase 2 changes will be fully implemented by January 1, 2025, with a transition period starting June 10, 2024. The two modifications to the certified labor doulas (CLD) certification requirement are effective April 11, 2024.
Erica Ferron, 303-676-3626,
Section 746 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 (NDAA FY 2021) directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a five-year demonstration project under TRICARE to evaluate the cost, quality of care, and impact on maternal and fetal outcomes of covering the services of doulas and lactation consultants or counselors not otherwise TRICARE-authorized, and to determine whether it would be appropriate to implement permanent coverage. Section 746 also required the Secretary to conduct a maternity survey.
This demonstration was implemented as the CBSD, with details announced in a
This FRN announces a second iteration of certain components of childbirth support services under the CBSD. This new phase will include a new reimbursement methodology, new doula-specific codes, increased flexibility for antepartum and postpartum visits, and a new requirement for CLDs to be participating providers. Phase 2 will be fully implemented by January 1, 2025, with a transition period during which services will be reimbursed under the existing (Phase 1) requirements. Each component of the new phase and the transition are discussed in full in this notice.
The first component of the new phase of childbirth support services announced in this FRN is the establishment of a reimbursement methodology that will replace the current reimbursement amounts. The methodology is as follows:
(1) TRICARE will identify state Medicaid rates for states reimbursing for doula services.
(2) TRICARE will identify an appropriate Medicaid-to-Medicare Fee Index for obstetrical services for each state reimbursing for Medicaid services.
(3) The state Medicaid rates will be multiplied by the Fee Index.
(4) A weighted average will be created based on the number of TRICARE reimbursed deliveries that occur in each state with a Medicaid program that reimburses for doula services. This weighted average will be the national reimbursement rate for CLDs under the CBSD.
Using this methodology, the DHA anticipates that the calendar year (CY) 2024 rate for antepartum and postpartum visits (60 minutes) will be approximately $107.00 per visit and $957.00 for continuous labor support. This national rate will then be adjusted by locality using the Medicare Geographic Adjustment Factor. The national rate will be recalculated annually based on Medicaid program rates and current Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes along with the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC) update published each year by March 1 (available at
As part of Phase 2, the DHA intends to implement new, doula service-specific codes to replace the current general maternity and home health codes. The new codes, which will be announced in the TRICARE manuals, will be tied to the new reimbursement rates while the existing, Phase 1 codes, will remain linked to the Phase 1 rates until the transition is completed.
The third component of the Phase 2 changes is a modification to how antepartum and postpartum support visits will be billed and paid. Currently these visits are untimed, with six visits authorized. This FRN announces that the DHA is switching to timed visits, with visits billed per 15-minute increment, with each beneficiary allowed up to 24 15-minute increments (each 15-minute increment would be reimbursable at about $26.75 in CY 2024). This will allow the beneficiary and their doula to select the most appropriate use of their visit allowance. For example, a beneficiary might choose a 90-minute initial antepartum visit (six increments), a two-and-a-half-hour initial postpartum visit (ten increments), and two 60-minute postpartum visits (eight increments). The new billing codes, discussed above, will be billed per 15-minute increment for visits. The DHA will publish coding guidance for doulas in the implementing instructions in the TRICARE manuals found at
The final adjustment that DHA is making as part of Phase 2 is adding a requirement that all CLDs under the CBSD must be a participating provider under TRICARE. Under this requirement, CLDs will be required to file claims and to accept the TRICARE reimbursement rate as payment in full, as well as meet all other requirements as a TRICARE-participating provider.
The changes above will be fully effective on January 1, 2025, with a transition period from June 10, 2024 until January 1, 2025. During the transition period, CLDs can opt to perform services under Phase 1 or Phase 2. CLDs who are non-participating will be eligible to continue to render services under the CBSD through the end of the transition period using Phase 1 common procedural terminology codes and billing rules, and to receive Phase 1 reimbursement rates. Similarly, during the transition, beneficiaries will be able to file for reimbursement for services received from non-participating providers under Phase 1 requirements. Non-participating providers will be ineligible for reimbursement of services rendered on or after January 1, 2025, even if the non-participating provider has entered into an agreement with a beneficiary, and/or their doula benefit has not yet been exhausted. For example, if a non-participating provider renders antepartum visits in late December 2024, those may be reimbursed; however, if the beneficiary experiences labor on January 2, 2025, the continuous labor support charges will be denied unless the provider becomes a participating provider.
CLDs who are already participating providers (network or non-network) when the transition period begins or who execute a participation agreement before the end of the transition period will be eligible to begin using the new codes and to receive the new reimbursement rates. This eligibility will begin either on the start of the transition period or the date the participation agreement is signed, whichever is later.
Any antepartum or postpartum visits performed under Phase 1 requirements will count as 4 15-minute increments against the beneficiary's 24 visit allowance under Phase 2.
The DHA notes that it will take several months for the TRICARE's contractors to implement the new billing codes, during which time claims processing under Phase 2 may be delayed.
Separate from the Phase 2 changes discussed above, the Director is also announcing that one new certification body will be accepted for CLDs under the CBSD: the National Black Doula Association (NBDA). The DHA made this decision based on analysis of publicly available information for the approximately 47 certification and training bodies recognized by the state Medicaid programs (not already approved under the CBSD) using the criteria discussed in the FRN that published on October 29, 2021. The criteria we discussed in that FRN required that the bodies selected for inclusion had to have a time-limited certification and be well-established with a wide-ranging footprint (
The Director, DHA, also announces in this FRN that the certification requirement for doulas practicing in a state with an active state-wide doula Medicaid benefit will be waived when that doula is actively enrolled in that state Medicaid program and provides evidence of such an enrollment (the doula must be practicing in the state in which they hold a Medicaid enrollment). To be eligible, the Medicaid program must be a state-wide program with requirements set by the state Medicaid agency. Medicaid programs of limited duration (pilot/demonstration programs) and programs where a contractor (for example, a managed care organization or accountable care organization) sets the provider requirements do not meet these criteria. All other TRICARE CLD requirements will continue to be in effect (age, education, experience, cardiopulmonary resuscitation certification, and possession of a national provider identification number). The various statewide programs have different and varying requirements, and so this demonstration is testing the impact of those programs on provider quality and availability. This may impact the DHA's provider requirements if a permanent benefit is established. The TRICARE program is a uniform benefit, but because this is a demonstration, we are allowing some variability between the states so that we can test the impact of these differences on provider quality, availability, and other outcomes.
The modifications in this FRN are not anticipated to increase the overall cost of the CBSD above the $51.16M for health care and administrative costs that were announced in the 2021 FRN.
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 Department of the Navy Science and Technology Board (DON S&T Board) will take place.
A closed meeting will be held on April 30 to May 1, 2024 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). A closed meeting is required because the discussions will involve classified national security matters and technical processes.
The closed meeting will be held at the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Ms. Maria Proestou, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development & Acquisition), Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000, 703-692-8278,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5 U.S.C. (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), title 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.140 and 102-3.150 and covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (l).
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and in accordance with title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB or Board) will be renewed for a two-year period beginning April 8, 2024.
The Board provides the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) with information, advice, and recommendations concerning issues affecting the EM program at various sites. These site-specific issues include, but are not limited to, clean-up activities and environmental restoration; waste and nuclear materials management and disposition; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship; and risk assessment and communications.
Additionally, the renewal of the Board has been determined to be essential to conduct DOE's business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the DOE by law and agreement. The Board will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and rules and regulations issued in implementation of that Act.
Kelly Snyder, EM SSAB Designated Federal Officer, by Phone: (702) 918-6715 or Email:
This document of the Department of Energy (DOE) was signed on April 5, 2024, by Sarah E. Butler, Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2024.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AES Westwing II ES, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 25, 2024.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Gorham Hydroelectric Project, located on the Androscoggin River in Coos County, New Hampshire and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. No federal land is occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.
The DEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the DEA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Ryan Hansen at (202) 502-8074 or
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the J. Brodie Smith Hydroelectric Project, located on the Androscoggin River in Coos County, New Hampshire and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. No federal land is occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.
The DEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the DEA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Ryan Hansen at (202) 502-8074 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On February 16, 2024, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application in Docket No. CP24-60-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act to abandon, construct, and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Northern Lights 2025 Expansion Project (Project), and Northern states it would provide 46,064 dekatherms per day serving residential, commercial, and industrial customer market growth in Northern's Market Area.
On February 29, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Northern proposes to construct and operate about 8.6 miles of pipeline extensions, and associated ancillary and auxiliary equipment in Freeborn, Houston, and Washington Counties, Minnesota, and Monroe County, Wisconsin.
The Northern Lights 2025 Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:
• 3.0-mile-long extension of its 36-inch-diameter Lake Mills to Albert Lea E Line;
• 2.43-mile-long extension of its 30-inch-diameter Elk River 3rd Branch Line;
• a non-contiguous 1.91-mile-long extension of its 30-inch-diameter Farmington to Hugo C-Line;
• 1.28-mile-long extension of its 8-inch-diameter Tomah Branch Line Loop;
• one pig new launcher,
• minor piping modifications within its existing La Crescent Compressor Station;
• relocation of one pig receiver facility;
• three new valve settings and associated valves and piping;
• removal of three existing tie-in valve settings;
• abandonment and removal of 275 feet of its existing 30-inch diameter Elk River 3rd branch line; and
• and other appurtenant facilities.
On March 26, 2024, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that on April 4, 2024, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 18 CFR 385.206 (2022), Atlantic Marketing & Trading, Inc. filed a complaint against Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) challenging the justness and reasonableness of the rates charged by Colonial for transportation service pursuant to certain tariffs on file with the Commission.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondents in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes.For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AES ES Alamitos 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 25, 2024.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
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 Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is modifying an existing system of records maintained by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Child Support Services (OCSS): System No. 09-80-0381, “OCSS National Directory of New Hires, HHS/ACF/OCSS.”
This Notice is applicable April 11, 2024, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the new and revised routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by May 13, 2024.
The public should address written comments by mail or email to Anita Alford, Senior Official for Privacy, Administration for Children and Families, 330 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20201, or by email to
General questions about these system of records should be submitted by mail or email to Venkata Kondapolu, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Services, at 330 C St. SW—5th Floor, Washington, DC 20201, or
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), HHS is modifying an existing system of records maintained by ACF, OCSS: System No. 09-80-0381, “OCSS National Directory of New Hires, HHS/ACF/OCSS.”
This system of records covers records about newly hired employees, including employer, wage, unemployment compensation, and income withholding information, maintained for child support program purposes (including locating parents, the establishment of parentage, and the establishment and enforcement of child support and medical support obligations). The System of Records Notice (SORN) has been modified as follows:
• The System Name has been changed to “OCSS National Directory of New Hires” to reflect the name change of the “Office of Support Enforcement” to the “Office of Child Support Services.”
• The System Manager section has been revised to change the title of the official serving as the System Manager from “Acting Director” to “Director” and to change the office name to “Office of Child Support Services.”
• The Purpose(s) section has been revised to include an additional purpose for which OCSS may use NDNH data,
• The Categories of Individuals section has been revised to:
○ Remove the category of individuals whose information is contained within input records furnished for purposes of establishing or verifying eligibility of applicants for, or beneficiaries of, federal or state benefit programs. This category is redundant because these individuals would be covered by the other categories.
○ Add “individuals about whom information is captured in the NDNH other than as described in the preceding categories” to clarify that the last category is not a subset of the other categories.
• The Categories of Records section has been revised as follows:
○ In category (1), “furnished by a State Directory of New Hires” has been omitted, and the citation 42 U.S.C. 653a(g)(2)(A) was corrected to read 42 U.S.C. 653a(a)(2)(C).
○ In category (2), “furnished by a federal department, agency, or instrumentality” has been omitted, and the Department of Defense status code has been explained as indicating whether an individual is an active duty, civilian, retired/pension, or reserve employee.
○ In category (3), “furnished by a State Directory of New Hires” has been omitted, and unemployment compensation records are now described as consisting of claimant name, Social Security Number (SSN), address, benefit amount, and reporting period.
○ Existing category (4) has been broken into two categories, now numbered as (4) and (5), and revised as follows:
In category (4), “furnished by a federal department, agency, or instrumentality” has been omitted; “wages paid to individuals” has been changed to “the amount of quarterly wages paid to federal employees”; and quarterly wages are now described as including quarterly wage processed date, employee name, federal employer identification number (FEIN), employer's state, Department of Defense code, employer name, employer address, employee wage amount, quarterly wage reporting period, transmitter agency code, transmitter state code, and transmitter state or agency name.
In category (5), “records obtained pursuant to an agreement” has been omitted; “wage and unemployment compensation” has been changed to “wage and unemployment compensation amounts paid to individuals, as maintained by or for the Department of Labor”; and unemployment compensation records are now described as including unemployment insurance processed date, claimant name, claimant address, claimant benefit amount, unemployment insurance reporting period, transmitter state code, and transmitter state or agency name.
○ In category (6) (formerly category (5)), matching program input records are now described as consisting of an individual's name, date of birth, and SSN, and an explanation has been added stating that “[s]uch input records are included in the NDNH to,
○ In category (7) (formerly category (6)), “termination date” has been changed to “employment termination date”; “contact information” has been changed to “phone number, home address, email address”; examples of employers' third party service providers have been included (“
• The Record Source Categories section has been revised to change “departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of the United States or any state” to “federal, state, local, territorial, or tribal government agencies.”
• The Routine Uses section has been updated as follows:
○ A note at the start of the section stating that HHS may make a disclosure under a routine use subject to redisclosure restrictions has been revised to state that any such restrictions will be imposed pursuant to a Data Use Agreement entered into between HHS and the disclosure recipient.
○ Routine use 1 has been reworded at the start to change “information” to “records” and to provide examples explaining the term “individual.”
○ Routine use 3 has been revised to include a definition of “applicant” and to update a statutory citation to read “22 U.S.C. 9001” instead of “42 U.S.C. 11601.”
○ Routine use 4 has been revised to correct a statutory citation to read “42” U.S.C. 659a instead of “52” U.S.C. 659a.
○ Routine use 5 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
○ Routine use 6 has been revised to remove “of individuals about whom information is maintained.”
○ Routine use 7 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
○ Routine use 8 has been revised to change “the Secretary” to “the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”
○ Routine use 9 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
○ Former routine use 10, which authorized disclosures of data “without personal identifiers” for certain research purposes, has been deleted as unnecessary, because data lacking personal identifiers would not constitute Privacy Act records. The routine use is also unnecessary to the
○ Routine use 10 is now a new routine use added to allow HHS to disclose to the Secretary of Agriculture information about individuals participating in a rural housing program for the purpose of verifying the employment and income of the individual, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 1981(f).
○ Routine uses 11, 12, and 16 have been revised to remove unnecessary wording at the end of each routine use, mentioning that the recipients also use data, with personal identifiers removed, to conduct analyses. That is now stated in the Purpose(s) section, because the recipients receive deidentified datasets from OCSS to use for that purpose (they do not create deidentified datasets from identifiable data they receive from OCSS). In addition:
Routine use 11 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
Routine use 12 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
Routine use 16 has been revised to reflect that the disclosures are for “veteran employment tracking” instead of for “verifying the employment and income of the individual” because the applicable disclosure provision in Title 42, United States Code, is now 42 U.S.C. 653a(h)(4) (added by Pub. L. 116-315, Jan. 5, 2021), which permits the Veterans Administration to access “information reported by employers . . . for purposes of tracking employment of veterans.” (The former disclosure provision, 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(11), expired Mar. 29, 2014; see 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(11)(G)(ii).). This routine use has also been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
○ Routine use 13 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
○ Routine use 14 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient. In addition, the words “which has been referred to the Secretary of the Treasury for collection” have been added.
○ Routine use 15 has been revised to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
○ Routine use 17 has been revised to change “information” to “records,” and to include “upon request” to show that the disclosures are initiated by the disclosure recipient.
○ Routine use 19 has been revised to change “individual” to “subject individual.”
○ A note at the end of the Routine Uses section has been revised. It explains that most disclosures the Privacy Act authorizes to be made without the data subject's consent are not, in fact, permissible for NDNH data, based on the restrictions contained in NDNH's authorizing statute at 42 U.S.C. 653(l)(1). The revised note also explains that, notwithstanding the restrictions in NDNH's authorizing statute, HHS may lawfully disclose NDNH data, upon request, to the following federal agencies without the data subject's consent, as such disclosures are
• The Retention and Disposal section has been revised to explain that the “order identifier” is an “alternate state case identifier.”
• The Record Access Procedures section has been revised to change “the request should include” to “the request must include.”
OCSS National Directory of New Hires, HHS/ACF/OCSS, 09-80-0381.
Unclassified.
Office of Child Support Services, Administration for Children and Families, 330 C St. SW—5th Floor, Washington, DC 20201.
Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Services, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, 330 C St. SW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20201, or
42 U.S.C. 652(a)(9), 652(n), 653(a)(1) and (2), 653(c)(5), 653(i), and 659a(c)(2).
The Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) uses the NDNH primarily to assist states and Indian tribes or tribal organizations to locate parents; establish paternity and child support orders, including the establishment of medical support; and enforce child support and medical support orders. States and other entities are specifically authorized by statute to use NDNH data in their programs for specific purposes, and OCSS coordinates their access to the data for those purposes. These purposes include: (a) to support the following programs, as specified in 42 U.S.C. 653 and 663: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, child and family services programs, and foster care and adoption assistance programs; (b) to establish or verify the eligibility of applicants for, or beneficiaries of, federal and state benefit programs, including through the use of matching programs; (c) to recoup payments or delinquent debts under benefit programs and non-tax debts owed to the Federal Government; (d) to administer the tax code; and (e) to conduct research likely to contribute to achieving the purposes of the TANF program or the federal/state/tribal child support program, as authorized under 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(5). OCSS may also use NDNH data to create deidentified or aggregate datasets for its reporting purposes, or for use by HHS or another agency for analysis. For example, OCSS provides deidentified NDNH data about rural housing program participants to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to support analysis regarding employment and income reporting.
(1) Individuals who are newly hired “employees” within the meaning of chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 3401, whose employers have furnished the information specified under 42 U.S.C. 653a(b)(1)(A) to a State Directory of New Hires which, in turn, has furnished such information to the NDNH pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653a(g)(2)(A).
(2) Individuals who are Federal Government employees whose employers have furnished specified information to the NDNH pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(n) and 653a(b)(1)(c). This category does not include individuals who are employees of a department, agency, or instrumentality performing intelligence or counterintelligence functions, if the head of such department, agency, or instrumentality has determined that filing such a report
(3) Individuals to whom unemployment compensation or wages have been paid, and about whom the State Directory of New Hires has furnished such information to the NDNH pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(e)(3) and 653a(g)(2)(B). Such individuals may include independent contractors, in accordance with state law.
(4) Individuals about whom information is captured in the NDNH other than as described in the preceding categories, including individuals involved in child support cases whose information is collected from and disseminated to employers (and other payers of income) and state or Tribal IV-D child support enforcement agencies, courts, and other authorized entities for enforcement of child support orders by withholding of income.
(1) Records pertaining to newly hired employees as defined by 42 U.S.C. 653a(a)(2)(C). Records in the system are the name, address, Social Security Number (SSN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), and date of hire of the employee; the name, address, and federal identification number of the employer of such employee; and, at the option of the state, the date of birth or state of hire of the employee.
(2) Records pertaining to newly hired federal employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653a(b)(1)(C), including the name, address, SSN (or TIN), and date of hire of the employee; the name, address, and employer identification number (EIN) of the employer, and, where available, a Department of Defense status code, indicating whether an individual is an active duty, civilian, retired/pension, or reserve employee.
(3) Records pertaining to wages and unemployment compensation paid to individuals pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653a(g)(2)(B). Unemployment compensation records include claimant name, SSN, address, benefit amount, and reporting period. Such records may also pertain to independent contractors, in accordance with state law.
(4) Records pertaining to the quarterly wages paid to federal employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(n). Quarterly wage records include the date quarterly wages were processed, employee name, federal employer identification number (FEIN), employer's state, Department of Defense code, employer name, employer address, employee wage amount, quarterly wage reporting period, transmitter agency code, transmitter state code, and transmitter state or agency name.
(5) Records pertaining to quarterly wage and unemployment compensation amounts paid to individuals, as maintained by or for the Department of Labor pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(e)(3). Unemployment compensation records include unemployment insurance processed date, claimant name, claimant address, claimant benefit amount, unemployment insurance reporting period, transmitter state code, and transmitter state or agency name.
(6) Input records, consisting of an individual's name, date of birth, and SSN, furnished by a state or federal agency or other entity for authorized matching with the NDNH. Such input records are included in the NDNH to,
(7) Records collected from employers and other income sources pertaining to income withholding and medical support such as: employment termination date, final payment date and amount, phone number, home address, email address, names of children, health care coverage provider information (such as provider and contact name, FEIN, address, phone and fax numbers), information about any third-party service providers (
NDNH records are obtained from federal, state, local, territorial, or tribal government agencies; from entities authorized to match to receive NDNH information; and from health plan administrators, employers, and other income sources.
These routine uses specify circumstances under which HHS may disclose records from this system of records without the consent of the data subject. Each proposed disclosure under any of these routine uses will be evaluated to ensure that the disclosure is legally permissible. When HHS makes a disclosure under a routine use and is required by law to, or chooses to, prohibit redisclosures or permit only certain redisclosures, HHS will make the disclosure pursuant to a Data Use Agreement that imposes the pertinent use, reuse, and re-disclosure restrictions on the recipient. Any information defined as “return” or “return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 (Internal Revenue Code) will not be disclosed under a routine use unless authorized by a statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
(1)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(a)(2), 653(b)(1)(A), and 653(c), records of the location of an individual (
(2)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(b)(1), upon request of an “authorized person,” as defined in 42 U.S.C. 663(d)(2), information as to the most recent address and place of employment of a parent or child may be disclosed for the purpose of enforcing any state or federal law with respect to the unlawful taking or restraint of a child or making or enforcing a child custody or visitation determination.
(3)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(b)(1) and 663(e), the most recent address and place of employment of a parent or child may be disclosed upon request to the Department of State, in its capacity as the Central Authority designated in accordance with section 7 of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. 9001
(4)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 652(n), 653(a)(2), 653(c)(5), and 659a(c)(2), information on the state of residence of an individual sought for support enforcement purposes in cases involving residents of the United States and residents of foreign treaty countries or foreign countries that are the subject of a declaration under 42 U.S.C. 659a may be disclosed to the foreign country.
(5)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(i)(3), information may be disclosed to the Secretary of the Treasury, upon request, for purposes of administering 26 U.S.C. 32 (earned income tax credit), administering 26 U.S.C. 3507 (advance payment of earned income tax credit), and verifying a claim with respect to employment in a tax return.
(6)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(1), HHS may disclose names, SSNs, and birth dates to the Social Security Administration to the extent necessary for verification by the Social Security Administration.
(7)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(2), the results of a comparison between records in this system and the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders may be disclosed, upon request, to the state or tribal IV-D child support enforcement agency responsible for the case for the purpose of locating an individual in a paternity establishment case or a case involving the establishment, modification, or enforcement of a support order.
(8)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(3), information may be disclosed to a state to the extent and with the frequency that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines to be effective in assisting the state to carry out its responsibilities under child support programs operated under 42 U.S.C. 651 through 669b (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, Child Support and Establishment of Paternity), child and family services programs operated under 42 U.S.C. 621 through 629m (Title IV-B of the Social Security Act), Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs operated under 42 U.S.C. 670 through 679c (Title IV-E of the Social Security Act), and assistance programs funded under 42 U.S.C. 601 through 619 (Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
(9)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(4), information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Social Security, upon request, for the purpose of verifying eligibility for the Social Security Administration's programs and the administration of such programs, and for the administration of the Ticket to Work program.
(10)
Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 1981(f), information may be disclosed, upon request, to the Secretary of Agriculture for the purpose of verifying the employment and income of individuals participating in a rural housing program (United States Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472, 1474, 1490a, and 1490r)).
(11)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(6), the results of a comparison of information in this system with information in the custody of the Secretary of Education may be disclosed, upon request, to the Secretary of Education for the purpose of collection of debts owed on defaulted student loans, or refunds on overpayments of grants, made under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070
(12)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(7), information regarding an individual participating in a housing assistance program (United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437
(13)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(8), the employment, address, and income records of an individual whose name and SSN are furnished to HHS by a state agency administering an unemployment compensation program under federal or state law may be disclosed, upon request, to the state agency for the purposes of administering the unemployment compensation program.
(14)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(9), information pertaining to a person who owes the United States delinquent non-tax debt and whose debt has been referred to the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g) may be disclosed, upon request, to the Secretary of the Treasury for purposes of collecting the debt.
(15)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(10), an individual's employment, address, and income records may be disclosed, upon request, to a state agency responsible for administering a supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011
(16)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653a(h)(4), information may be disclosed, upon request, to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the purpose of tracking the employment of the individual.
(17)
Records may be disclosed, upon request, to the appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency responsible for identifying, investigating, and prosecuting noncustodial parents who knowingly fail to pay their child support obligations and meet the criteria for federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 228. The records must be relevant to the violation of criminal nonsupport, as stated in the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, 18 U.S.C. 228.
(18)
Records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or to a court or other adjudicative body in litigation or other proceedings when HHS or any of its components, or any employee of HHS in his or her official capacity, or any employee of HHS in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ or HHS has agreed to represent the employee, or the United States, is a party to the proceedings or has an interest in the proceedings and, by careful review, HHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the proceedings.
(19)
Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to a written inquiry from the congressional office made at the written request of the subject individual.
(20)
Records may be disclosed to a contractor performing or working on a contract for HHS who has a need for the records in the performance of its duties or activities in accordance with law and with the contract.
(21)
(a) Records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(b) Records may be disclosed to another federal agency or federal entity when HHS determines that records from this system of records are reasonably necessary to assist in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
In addition to the above routine use disclosures published pursuant to the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), the Privacy Act permits an agency to make other disclosures described at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) without the data subject's consent and without publishing a routine use. Most of those standardized disclosures are not, in fact, permissible for NDNH data due to restrictions in NDNH's authorizing statute at 42 U.S.C. 653(l)(1). Notwithstanding the restrictions in the NDNH statute, HHS may lawfully disclose NDNH data upon request to the following federal agencies without the data subject's consent, as
(a) the Comptroller General under 31 U.S.C. 721; and
(b) the HHS Inspector General under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3, section 6(a)(1).
Records in the NDNH are stored electronically at the Social Security Administration's National Support Center and the OCSS Data Center. Historical logs and system backups are stored off-site at an alternate location.
Records maintained in the NDNH are retrieved by the SSN (or TIN) of the individual to whom the record pertains. Records collected and disseminated from employers and other income sources are retrieved by state Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) codes and employer identification numbers, and records collected and disseminated from state IV-D child support enforcement agencies are retrieved by state FIPS codes.
Records maintained in the NDNH are retained for 24 months after the date of entry and then are deleted from the database pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653(i)(2)(A) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approved disposition schedule, N1-292-10-2. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 653(i)(2)(B), OCSS will not have access, for child support enforcement purposes, to quarterly wage and unemployment insurance records in the NDNH if 12 months have elapsed since the information was provided by a State Directory of New Hires pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653A(g)(2)(B) and there has not been a match resulting from the use of such records in any information comparison authorized under 42 U.S.C. 653(i). Input records for authorized matching to obtain NDNH information and records pertaining to income withholding collected and disseminated by OCSS are retained for 60 days. Audit logs, including information such as employer identification numbers, FIPS code numbers, document tracking numbers, case identification numbers and order identifier (alternate state case identifier), are retained up to 5 years.
The system leverages cloud service providers that maintain an authority to operate in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and policies, including Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) requirements. Specific administrative, technical, and physical controls are in place to ensure that the records collected and maintained in the NDNH are secure from unauthorized access. Access to the records is restricted to authorized personnel who are advised of the confidentiality of the records and the civil and criminal penalties for misuse and who sign a nondisclosure oath to that effect. Personnel are provided privacy and security training before being granted access to the records and annually thereafter.
Logical access controls are in place to limit access to the records to authorized personnel, to limit their access based on
To request access to a record about you in this system of records, submit a written access request to the System Manager. The request must include your name, telephone number or email address, current address, signature, and sufficient particulars (such as date of birth or SSN) to enable the System Manager to distinguish between records on subject individuals with the same name. To verify your identity, your signature must be notarized, or your request must include your written certification that you are the individual who you claim to be and that you understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to an individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense subject to a fine of up to $5,000.
To request correction of a record about you in this system of records, submit a written amendment request to the System Manager. The request must contain the same information required for an access request and include verification of your identity in the same manner required for an access request. In addition, the request must reasonably identify the record and specify the information contested, the corrective action sought, and the reasons for requesting the correction; it should include supporting information to show how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant.
To find out if this system of records contains a record about you, submit a written notification request to the System Manager. The request must identify this system of records, contain the same information required for an access request, and include verification of your identity in the same manner required for an access request.
None.
87 FR 3553 (Jan. 24, 2022).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) has determined that VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 milligrams (mg)/5 milliliters (mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Awo Archampong-Gray, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6243, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0110,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, is the subject of NDA 011795, held by Pfizer Inc., and initially approved on June 3, 1959. VISTARIL is indicated for symptomatic relief of anxiety and tension associated with psychoneurosis and as an adjunct in organic disease states in which anxiety is manifested. It is also useful in the management of pruritus due to allergic conditions such as chronic urticaria and atopic and contact dermatoses, and in histamine-mediated pruritus. It is also indicated as a sedative when used as premedication and following general anesthesia. VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. submitted a citizen petition dated November 17, 2023 (Docket No. FDA-2023-P-5095), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, has been voluntarily withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to VISTARIL (hydroxyzine pamoate) Oral Suspension, 25 mg/5 mL, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) has determined that KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 milligrams (mg) and 20 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for baclofen orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Alexander Poonai, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6213, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9120,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, are the subject of NDA 021589, held by UCB, Inc., and initially approved on October 30, 2003. KEMSTRO is indicated for the alleviation of signs and symptoms of spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, particularly for the relief of flexor spasms and concomitant pain, clonus, and muscular rigidity.
KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, are currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Pharmobedient Consulting, LLC, submitted a citizen petition dated October 16, 2023 (Docket No. FDA-2023-P-4587), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that these drug products were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to KEMSTRO (baclofen) orally disintegrating tablets, 10 mg and 20 mg, may be approved by the Agency so long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by May 13, 2024.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports statutory and regulatory requirements that govern food labeling, and information collection recommendations discussed in associated Agency guidance. Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Fair Packaging Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, and 1455) and sections 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 411, 701, and 721 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343, 348, 350, 371, and 379e), establish provisions under which a food product shall be deemed to be misbranded if, among other things, its label or labeling fails to bear certain required information concerning the food product, is false or misleading in any particular, or bears certain types of unauthorized claims. Implementing regulations are codified in parts 101, 102, 104, and 105 (21 CFR parts 101, 102, 104, and 105). While regulations in part 101 set forth general food labeling provisions, requirements pertaining to the common or usual name for nonstandardized foods; guidelines for nutritional quality to prescribe the minimum level or range of nutrient composition appropriate for a given class of food; and requirements for foods for special dietary use are found in parts 102, 104, and 105, respectively. The requirements are intended to ensure the safety of food products produced or sold in the United States and enable consumers to be knowledgeable about the foods they purchase and include corresponding information disclosure requirements, along with the reporting and recordkeeping provisions, subject to enforcement by FDA.
In the
We have also developed Agency guidance to communicate our interpretation of the regulatory requirements. The guidance document entitled “Menu Labeling: Supplemental Guidance for Industry” (May 2018), available at
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimate of burden reflects adjustments. We have reorganized the information collection activities into reporting and recordkeeping categories, eliminating a separate summary burden estimate for third-party disclosure. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(m), recordkeeping is a requirement to maintain specified records and includes activities such as disclosure of these records to third parties, the Federal government, or the public. We believe that vending machine operators and covered establishments who must demonstrate compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to food labeling would retain requisite records as a usual and customary business practice. (See 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).) At the same time, we have modified our recordkeeping burden estimates to account for effort that may be necessary to retain, as well as to “transmit or otherwise disclose [the] information,” to the Federal government and/or third parties (see 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1)(ix)) as required by the regulations to the extent that they reflect on activities applicable to §§ 101.8 and 101.11. Included in our estimated number of recordkeepers are those who voluntarily elect to register with FDA through submissions in accordance with §§ 101.8(d) and 101.11(d). Cumulatively, these adjustments result in a decrease of 1,399,306 hours and 7,370,090 responses annually to the information collection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that DUVYZAT (givinostat), approved on March 21, 2024, manufactured by Italfarmaco S.p.A., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Cathryn Lee, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1394.
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that DUVYZAT (givinostat), manufactured by Italfarmaco S.p.A., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. DUVYZAT (givinostat) oral suspension is indicated for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy in patients 6 years of age or older.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by May 13, 2024.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection helps support implementation of statutory requirements pertaining to ingredients derived from major food allergens. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) defines the term “major food allergen” (section 201(qq) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(qq))) and provides that foods are misbranded unless they declare the presence of each major food allergen on the product label using the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived or are exempt from the requirement. Under sections 403(w)(6) and (7) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)(6) and (7)), respondents may request an FDA determination that an ingredient is exempt from the labeling requirement of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act. Alternatively, an ingredient may become exempt through submission of a notification containing scientific evidence showing that the ingredient “does not contain allergenic protein” or that there has been a previous determination through a premarket approval process under section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348) that the ingredient “does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to human health” (section 403(w)(7) of the FD&C Act).
To assist respondents with the information collection in this regard, the document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Food Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions and Notifications” (June 2015), available on our website at
On April 23, 2021, the definition of the term “major food allergen” was amended by the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research Act of 2021 (FASTER Act) (Pub. L. 117-11) to include sesame. Accordingly, we are revising the information collection to account for burden attributable to required declarations and/or associated requests for exemption as they pertain to foods that include sesame. We issued the draft guidance document entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Food Allergens, Including the Food Allergen Labeling Requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Edition 5)” (November 2022), available on our website at
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimate of the third-party disclosure burden associated with food allergen labeling under section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act includes the time we assume respondents need to review the labels of new or reformulated products for compliance with the requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, along with the time needed to make any needed modifications to the labels of those products. We believe firms have already redesigned their labels to comply with requirements under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004. However, this estimate accounts for firms that will redesign their label to comply with requirements under the FASTER Act. Our estimated reporting burden is based on our past experience with these submissions. We have increased our cumulative estimate by 12,552 hours and 776 responses annually to reflect the inclusion of sesame as a major food allergen.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for public comment on draft Health Center Program policy guidance regarding services to support transitions in care for Justice-involved individuals reentering the community.
HRSA is inviting public comment on the draft Health Center Program Policy Guidance Regarding Services to Support Transitions in Care for Justice-Involved Individuals Reentering the Community. The purpose of the draft Policy Information Notice (PIN) is to propose Health Center Program policy guidance for all health centers that apply for and receive federal award funds under the Health Center Program, as authorized by section 330 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (including sections 330(e), (g), (h), and (i)), as well as section 330 subrecipient organizations and Health Center Program look-alikes, to clarify the conditions under which they may provide certain health services as part of the Health Center Program scope of project to certain incarcerated/detained individuals. This draft PIN establishes policy guidance that identifies a set of health services that a health center may provide, the locations at which such services may be provided, the target population for such services (specifically, incarcerated/detained individuals who are scheduled for release from a carceral setting within 90 days), and other pertinent circumstances under which the health center may, on its own behalf and subject to all section 330 requirements, provide such services to justice-involved individuals reentering the community to support their care transition from the carceral setting to the community within the scope of their Health Center Program project.
Submit comments on or before June 14, 2024.
Electronic comments should be submitted through the HRSA Bureau of Primary Health Care Contact Form (
Jennifer Joseph, Office of Policy and Program Development Director, HRSA, at
HRSA provides grants to eligible applicants under section 330 of the PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b), to support the delivery of preventive and primary
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS).
Notice.
The Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture announce the fifth meeting of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee). This meeting will be open to the public virtually.
The fifth Committee meeting will be held on May 29, 2024, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time and on May 30, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be accessible online via livestream and recorded for later viewing. Registrants will receive the livestream information before the meeting.
Designated Federal Officer, 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Janet M. de Jesus, MS, RD; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 420, Rockville, MD 20852; Phone: 240-453-8266; Email
Meeting materials for each meeting will be accessible at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0019, Alternative Compliance for International and Inland Navigation Rules; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 10, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2024-0282] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0282, and must be received by June 10, 2024.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard is accepting applications to fill eighteen vacancies on the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee (Committee). This Committee advises the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to shallow-draft inland navigation, coastal waterway navigation, and towing safety.
Completed applications must reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before June 10, 2024.
Applications must include: (a) a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee, (b) a resume detailing the applicant's relevant experience for the position applied for, and (c) a brief biography. Applications should be submitted via email with subject line “NTSAC Vacancy Application” to
Mr. Matthew Layman, Designated Federal Officer of the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee; telephone 202-372-1421 or email at
The National Towing Safety Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee.
The National Towing Safety Advisory Committee was established by section 601 of the
The Committee is required to meet at least once a year in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15109(a). We expect the Committee to meet at least twice a year, but it may meet more frequently.
Under provisions in 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as a member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December 31st of the third full year after the effective date of your appointment. The Secretary of Homeland Security may require an individual to have passed an appropriate security background examination before appointment to the Committee, 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4).
All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary from the Federal Government. The only compensation the members may receive is for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, actual reasonable expenses, or both, incurred in the performance of their direct duties for the Committee in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. If you are appointed as a member of the
In this solicitation for Committee Members, we will consider applications for the following 18 positions:
• Seven members to represent the barge and towing industry, reflecting a regional geographic balance.
• One member to represent the offshore mineral and oil supply vessel industry.
• One member to represent masters and pilots of towing vessels who hold active licenses and have experience on the Western Rivers and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
• One member to represent the masters of towing vessels in offshore service who hold active licenses.
• One member to represent masters of active ship docking or harbor towing vessels.
• One member to represent licensed and unlicensed towing vessel engineers with formal training and experience.
• Two members to represent port districts, authorities, or terminal operators.
• Two members to represent shippers and of the two, one to engaged in the shipment of oil or hazardous materials by barge.
• Two members to represent the general public.
If you are applying for the position who represents the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). Applicants for appointment as a Special Government Employee are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450) for new entrants and if appointed as a member must submit a new entrant OGE Form 450 annually. The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal Court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C 552a). Only the Designated U. S. Coast Guard Ethics Official or their designee may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Applicants can obtain this form by going to the website of the Office of Government Ethics (
In order for the Department, to fully leverage broad-ranging experience and education, the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee must be diverse with regard to professional and technical expertise. The Department is committed to pursuing opportunities, consistent with applicable law, to compose a committee that reflects the diversity of the Nation's people.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, email your application to
The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late applications.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The National Towing Safety Advisory Committee (Committee) and its subcommittees will conduct a series of meetings over 2 days in Annapolis, MD, to review and discuss matters relating to shallow-draft inland navigation, coastal waterway navigation, and towing safety. These meetings will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held at the Graduate Annapolis, 126 West St, Annapolis, MD 21401 Graduate Annapolis | Hotel Near Naval Academy (
The National Towing Safety Advisory Committee is committed to ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of disability status. If you require reasonable accommodation due to a disability to fully participate, please email Mr. Matthew D. Layman at
Mr. Matthew D. Layman, Designated Federal Officer of the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee, telephone 202-372-1421, or
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the
The agenda for the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee is as follows:
a. Call to order and Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Remarks.
b. Committee Chairperson Remarks.
a. Task #22-01, Recommendations to the Coast Guard for Rulemaking Improvements to Subchapter M;
b. Task #22-02, Recommendations for Training and Instruction for Crewmembers Working Aboard Subchapter M Inspected Towing Vessels.
a. U. S Coast Guard E-Gov Travel Service Briefing.
b. Review New Task Statements.
• Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Policy Review.
a. Call to Order and DFO Remarks.
b. Committee Chairperson Remarks.
c. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum.
d. U.S. Coast Guard Leadership Remarks.
a. Adoption of Meeting Agenda.
b. Approval of Meeting Minutes for September 27, 2023 Committee Meeting.
a. Update from Subcommittees:
○ Task #22-01, Recommendation to the Coast Guard for Rulemaking Improvements to Subchapter M;
○ Task #21-04, Report on the Challenges Faced by the Towing Vessel Industry as a Result of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
b. Vetting Subcommittee Update.
a. Committee Planning.
a. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
b. Tradepoint Atlantic, Inc.
c. ACOE, Marine Construction.
d. U. S. Coast Guard Engineering Alternative Fuels.
e. U.S. Coast Guard Commercial Vessel Compliance.
A copy of all pre-meeting documentation will be available at
Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Matthew Layman as noted above in the
There will be a public comment period at the end of the meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual listed in the
To receive automatic email notices of future National Towing Safety Advisory Committee meetings in 2024, go to the online docket, USCG-2024-0190 (
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice of new collection 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 new information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning FEMA's sharing of information that includes personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive personally identifiable information (SPII) of disaster survivors.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 10, 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
Audrey Carter, Government Information Specialist, FEMA, at 202-288-6421 or
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579, as amended) (5 U.S.C. 552a) establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by Federal Agencies.
The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347) (5 U.S.C. chapter 37; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3606) improves the management and promotion of electronic government services and processes by establishing a Federal Chief Information Officer within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and by establishing a framework of measures that require using internet-based information technology to improve citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-288, as amended), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (“Stafford Act”) provides broad authority to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to carry out its mission of helping people before, during, and after disasters. FEMA shares information, to include PII and SPII, to meet the Agency's mission to: “reduce the loss of life and property and protect our institutions from all hazards by leading and supporting the nation in a comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.” As part of responding to requests to share information, FEMA engages in an interactive process with entities to determine the validity and scope of their data sharing request.
FEMA is creating this generic information collection to document the instruments FEMA uses to outline contractual sharing of protected information with external partners in disaster and non-disaster environments. This generic information collection will ensure all OMB-approved expiration dates are aligned across FEMA's Privacy Division and will also allow FEMA to update individual instruments as sub-collections under this generic instead of revising entire information collections and analyze individual instruments for burden reduction.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning information collected for the selling and servicing of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies by FEMA's direct servicing agent, NFIP Direct.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 10, 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 for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Joycelyn Collins, Underwriting Branch Program Analyst, Federal Insurance Directorate, at 202-701-3383 or
The NFIP is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA) (Pub. L. 90-448) and expanded by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234). The NFIA requires FEMA to provide flood insurance at full actuarial rates, reflecting the complete flood risk to structures built or substantially improved, on or after the effective date for the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map for the community, so that the risks associated with buildings in flood-prone areas are borne by those located in such areas and not by taxpayers at large. In accordance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, the purchase of flood insurance is mandatory when Federal or Federally-related financial assistance is being provided for acquisition or construction of buildings located, or to be located, within FEMA-identified special flood hazard areas of communities that participate in the NFIP.
FEMA proposes minor revisions to the existing paper forms completed by licensed insurance agents and the addition of a new electronic form that property owners can complete online.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
Comments are to be submitted on or before July 10, 2024.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2423, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of sales of reverse mortgage loans.
This notice announces HUD's intention to competitively offer approximately 1,265 home equity conversion mortgages (HECM, or reverse mortgage loans) secured by vacant properties with an updated loan balance of approximately $346 million. The sale will consist of due and payable Secretary-held reverse mortgage loans. The mortgage loans consist of first liens secured by single family, vacant residential properties, where all borrowers are deceased, and no borrower is survived by a non-borrowing spouse. The Secretary will prioritize up to 50 percent of the offered assets for award to nonprofit organizations or governmental entity bidders with a documented housing mission. This notice also generally describes the bidding process for the sale and certain entities who are ineligible to bid. This is the twelfth sale offering of its type and will be held on May 7, 2024.
For this sale action, the Bidder's Information Package (BIP) will be made available to qualified bidders on or about April 5, 2024. Bids for the HVLS 2024-2 sale will be accepted on the Bid Date of May 7, 2024 prior to 12:00 ET (Bid Date). HUD anticipates that award(s) will be made on or about May 10, 2024 (the Award Date).
To become an eligible bidder and receive the BIP for the December sale, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. The documents will be available in preview form with free login on the Transaction Specialist (TS), Falcon Capital Advisors, website:
If you cannot submit electronically, please submit executed documents via mail or facsimile to Falcon Capital Advisors: Falcon Capital Advisors, 427 N Lee Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, Attention: Glenn Ervin, HUD HVLS Loan Sale Coordinator. eFax: 1-202-393-4125.
John Lucey, Director, Office of Asset Sales, Room 3136, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2625, extension 3927 (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
This notice announces HUD's intention to sell in HVLS 2024-2 due and payable Secretary-held reverse mortgage loans. HUD is offering 1,265 reverse mortgage notes with an updated loan balance of approximately $346 million. The mortgage loans consist of first liens secured by single family, vacant residential properties, where all borrowers are deceased, and no borrower is survived by a non-borrowing spouse.
In this offering, HUD also intends to offer a reverse mortgage loan secured by a New York single family property (“Mark House”) in Albany County that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on August 29, 2022. This Mark House has a loan balance of approximately $337 thousand. HUD will accept bids from all eligible bidders who acknowledge the historical registration in the manner directed by HUD.
A listing of the mortgage loans will be included in the due diligence materials made available to eligible bidders. The mortgage loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with servicing released. HUD will offer eligible bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the mortgage loans.
The BIP describes in detail the procedure for bidding in HVLS 2024-2. The BIP also includes the applicable standardized non-negotiable Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreements for HVLS 2024-2 (CAAs). The CAAs will contain first look requirements, mission outcome goals, and the acknowledgment of the Mark House historical registration.
HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bids, in terms of the best value to HUD, in its sole and absolute discretion. If a bidder is successful, it will be required to submit a deposit which will be calculated based upon the total dollar value of the bidder's potential award. Award will be contingent on receiving the deposit in the timeframe outlined in the deposit letter. The deposit amount will be applied towards the purchase price at settlement.
This notice provides some of the basic terms of sale. The CAAs will be released in the BIP or BIP Supplement, as applicable. These documents provide comprehensive contractual terms and conditions to which eligible bidders will acknowledge and agree. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the CAAs are not subject to negotiation.
The BIP describes how eligible bidders may access the due diligence materials remotely via a high-speed internet connection.
HUD reserves the right to remove mortgage loans from a sale at any time prior to the Award Date and the settlement date for the mortgage loans. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, and include any unsold reverse mortgage loans from the HVLS 2024-2 sale in a later sale. Deliveries of mortgage loans will occur in conjunction with settlement and servicing transfer no later than 60 days after the Award Date.
The reverse mortgage loans offered for sale were insured by and were assigned to HUD pursuant to section 255 of the National Housing Act, as amended. The sale of the reverse mortgage loans is pursuant to HUD's authority in section 204(g) of the National Housing Act.
HUD selected an open competitive whole-loan sale as the method to sell the reverse mortgage loans for this specific sale transaction. For the HVLS 2024-2 sale, HUD has determined that this method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these reverse mortgage loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all eligible bidders to bid on the reverse mortgage loans, and provides the quickest and most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the due and payable reverse mortgage loans.
In order to bid in HVLS 2024-2 as an eligible bidder, a prospective bidder must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement, a Qualification Statement (HUD-9611), and an Addendum for Nonprofit and Government Pools and Sub-pools (HUD-9612), as applicable (collectively, for these bidders, the Qualification Statement (HUD-9611) and Addendum for Nonprofit and Government Pools and Sub-pools (HUD-9612), as applicable, shall be defined as the Qualification Statement) that is acceptable to HUD. Eligible bidders seeking to be awarded loans on a priority basis must submit the Confidentiality Agreement, Qualification Statement (HUD-9611), and Addendum for Nonprofit and Government Pools and Sub-pools (HUD-9612), and Housing Mission Supplemental Certification (collectively, for these bidders, the Qualification Statement (HUD-9611) and Addendum for Nonprofit and Government Pools and Sub-pools (HUD-9612), and Housing Mission Supplemental Certification shall be defined as the Qualification Statement), that is acceptable to HUD. In the Qualification Statement, the prospective bidder must provide certain representations and warranties regarding the prospective bidder, including (i) the prospective bidder's board of directors, (ii) the prospective bidder's direct parent, (iii) the prospective bidder's subsidiaries, (iv) any related entity with which the prospective bidder shares a common officer, director, subcontractor or sub-contractor who has access to Confidential Information as defined in the Confidentiality Agreement or is involved in the formation of a bid transaction (collectively the “Related Entities”), and (v) the prospective bidder's repurchase lenders. The prospective bidder is ineligible to bid on any of the reverse mortgage loans included in HVLS 2024-2 if the prospective bidder, its Related Entities, or its repurchase lenders, are any of the following, unless other exceptions apply as provided for in the Qualification Statement.
1. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to the Governmentwide Suspension and Debarment regulations at 2 CFR parts 180 and 2424;
2. An individual or entity that is currently suspended, debarred, or otherwise restricted by any department or agency of the federal government or of a state government from doing business with such department or agency;
3. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing mortgage related business, including having a business license suspended, surrendered or revoked, by any federal, state, or local government agency, division, or department;
4. An entity that has had its right to act as a Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) issuer terminated and its interest in mortgages backing Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities extinguished by Ginnie Mae;
5. An individual or entity that is in violation of its neighborhood stabilizing outcome obligations or post-sale reporting requirements under a Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreement executed for any previous mortgage loan sale of HUD;
6. An employee of HUD's Office of Housing, a member of such employee's household, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's household with household to be inclusive of the employee's father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, grandparent, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, first cousin, the spouse of any of the foregoing, and the employee's spouse;
7. A contractor, subcontractor, and/or consultant or advisor (including any agent, employee, partner, director, or principal of any of the foregoing) who performed services for or on behalf of HUD in connection with the sale;
8. An individual or entity that knowingly acquired or will acquire prior to the sale date material non-public information, other than that information which is made available to Bidder by HUD pursuant to the terms of this Qualification Statement, about mortgage loans offered in the sale;
9. An individual or entity which knowingly employs or uses the services of an employee of HUD's Office of Housing (other than in such employee's official capacity); or
10. An individual or entity that knowingly uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under 1 through 10 to assist in preparing any of its bids on the mortgage loans.
The Qualification Statement has additional representations and warranties which the prospective bidder must make, including but not limited to the representation and warranty that the prospective bidder or its Related Entities are not and will not knowingly use the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity that is, any of the following (and to the extent that any such individual or entity would prevent the prospective bidder from making the following representations, such individual or entity has been removed from participation in all activities related to this sale and has no ability to influence or control individuals involved in formation of a bid for this sale):
(1) An entity or individual is ineligible to bid on any included reverse mortgage loan or on the pool containing such reverse mortgage loan because it is an entity or individual that:
(a) Serviced or held such reverse mortgage loan at any time during the six-month period prior to the bid, or
(b) Is any principal of any entity or individual described in the preceding sentence;
(c) Any employee or subcontractor of such entity or individual during that six-month period; or
(d) Any entity or individual that employs or uses the services of any other entity or individual described in this paragraph in preparing its bid on such reverse mortgage loan.
In addition, for those eligible bidders seeking to be awarded mortgage loans on a priority basis and signing the Housing Mission Supplemental Certification, each prospective bidder must provide documentation and certify that its charitable or government purpose has a qualifying housing mission and that its participation in the sale is a furtherance of that housing mission.
HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding HVLS 2024-2, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful qualified bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for any pool of loans or
This notice applies to HVLS 2024-2 and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans.
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 10, 2024.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to U.S. Geological Survey, Information Collections Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive. MS 159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to
To request additional information about this Information Collection Request (ICR), contact Gregory Cocks by email at
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.
In accordance with the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might 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 that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
For this ICR revision, the USGS will no longer be collecting data for the following: National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), and National Hydrography Dataset Plus High Resolution (NHDPlus HR). We will transition to the 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP).
The USGS manages the 3DHP. The USGS also offers technical support and distributes authoritative hydrography data to the public as part of The National Map.
Markup Application allows citizens to submit proposed changes and corrections, called “suggested edits,” to the 3DHP. All submitted suggested edits, along with the user email contact, are saved in a dataset to be reviewed by USGS staff, or trusted stakeholders, for allowable edits and for validation. USGS staff or trusted stakeholders may contact the user submitting the suggested edit(s) via the recorded email address if further clarification is needed. Validated suggested edits go in a queue of edits to be incorporated into the 3DHP. The edits are made by USGS editors using internal editing tools/methods. No edits to the hydrography datasets take place within the Markup Application.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing to renew an existing information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 13, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this information collection request (ICR), contact Sarah Cook by email at
We provide the general public and other federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might 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 that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The William T. Pecora Award is presented annually to individuals or teams using satellite or aerial remote sensing that make outstanding contributions toward understanding the Earth (land, oceans, and air), educating the next generation of scientists; informing decision makers; or supporting natural or human-induced disaster response. The award is sponsored jointly by the Department of the Interior and NASA.
The award was established in 1974 to honor the memory of Dr. William T. Pecora, former director of the U.S. Geological Survey and Under Secretary, Department of the Interior. Dr. Pecora was a motivating force behind the establishment of a program for civil remote sensing of the Earth from space. His early vision and support helped establish what we know today as the Landsat satellite program. The purpose of the award is to recognize individuals or groups working in the field of remote sensing of the Earth. National and international nominations are accepted from public and private sector individuals, teams, organizations, and professional societies.
Nomination packages include three sections: a cover sheet, a summary statement, and supplemental materials. The cover sheet includes professional contact information. The summary statement is limited to two pages and describes the nominee's achievements in the scientific and technical remote sensing community; contributions leading to successful practical applications of remote sensing; and/or major breakthroughs in remote sensing science or technology. Nominations may include up to 12 pages of supplemental materials such as a resume, a publications list, letters of endorsement, etc., which highlight the specific individual or group's achievements. These should be peer-reviewed and documented in industry-recognized and scientifically credible publications.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person is required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is issuing a public notice of its intent to modify the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Privacy Act system of records, INTERIOR/LLM-37, Wild Horse & Burro Program System (WHBPS), to consolidate two systems of records, change the title to INTERIOR/BLM-37, Wild Horse and Burro Program (WHBP), and makes changes to all sections of the system of records notice (SORN) to reflect the expanded scope of the consolidated and modified system in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy. This modified system will be included in DOI's inventory of record systems.
This modified system will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses will be effective May 13, 2024. Submit comments on or before May 13, 2024.
You may send comments identified by docket number [DOI-2023-0020] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ashanti Murphy-Jones, Acting Associate Privacy Officer, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 5644, Washington, DC 20240,
The BLM created the Wild Horse and Burro Program (WHBP) to implement the Wild-Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, passed by Congress in 1971. Broadly, the law declares wild horses and burros to be “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West” and stipulates that the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) have the responsibility to manage and protect herds in their respective jurisdictions within areas where wild horses and burros were found roaming in 1971.
To maintain wild horses and burros in good condition and protect the health of our public lands, the BLM must manage the population growth of wild horse and burro herds. Without natural population controls, such as predation, herds can increase at a rate of up to 20 percent annually, doubling in size in just 4 to 5 years, if not appropriately managed. Population control must be implemented to protect scarce and fragile resources in the arid West and ensure healthy animals. To carry out this mission, the BLM controls herd growth through the application of fertility measures, such as birth control, and through the periodic removals of excess animals and the placement of those animals into private care.
The BLM manages the WHBP, which includes records on individuals covered by two SORNs. The INTERIOR/BLM-28, Adopt a Wild Horse, 51 FR 25111 (July 10, 1986), modifications published at 73 FR 17376 (April 1, 2008) and 86 FR 50156 (September 7, 2021), SORN covers the management of placing excess animals into private care through its adoption and sales programs. The INTERIOR/LLM-37, Wild Horse & Burro Program System (WHBPS), 72 FR 67956 (December 3, 2007), modifications published at 73 FR 17376 (April 1, 2008) and 86 FR 50156 (September 7, 2021), SORN covers the overall management, protection, and study of wild and free-roaming horses and burros on public lands in the United States.
During an annual review of these notices, the BLM determined that these two systems were managed by one system manager located in the WHBP Office, shared the same legal authorities, and generally had the same overarching purposes, categories of individuals and records, and retention. In an effort to streamline WHBP functions, improve consistency, and eliminate duplicative content, the BLM is proposing to consolidate these two systems of records into one, and change the system name from INTERIOR/LLM-37, Wild Horse & Burro Program System (WHBPS), to INTERIOR/BLM-37, Wild Horse and Burro Program (WHBP), to reflect the program-level management and clearly describe the records collected, used, and/or maintained in support of the overall WHBP. This notice also reorganizes the sections and provides updates to all sections to accurately reflect the scope of the new consolidated system of records in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108,
This revised notice combines the records in the two previous systems of records under one program SORN; updates the system location to reflect a centralized point of contact for the program; updates authorities to properly cite to all the specific programmatic authorities for collecting, maintaining, using, and disseminating the information under the WHBP; adds a new section to describe the purposes of the system; expands on the categories of individuals and categories of records to more accurately reflect the types of individuals and administrative records contained within the system; updates the record sources to include a more inclusive list; provides updates for the storage, retrieval, safeguards, and
The existing routine uses are being updated from a numeric to alphabetic list and are being modified to provide clarity and transparency and reflect updates consistent with standard DOI routine uses. Additionally, DOI is proposing new routine uses to facilitate the sharing of information with agencies and organizations to promote the integrity of the records in the system or carry out a statutory responsibility of the DOI or Federal government.
Routine use A was slightly modified to further clarify disclosures to the Department of Justice or other Federal agencies, when necessary, in relation to litigation or judicial hearings. Routine use B was modified to clarify disclosures to a congressional office to respond to or resolve an individual's request made to that office. Routine use J was modified to allow DOI and the BLM to share information with appropriate Federal agencies or entities when reasonably necessary to respond to a breach of personally identifiable information and to prevent, minimize, or remedy the risk of harm to individuals or the Federal government in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-17-12,
Additionally, BLM is proposing new routine uses C through I, L through N, and P to facilitate the sharing of information with agencies and organizations to ensure the BLM can fulfill its responsibility to manage and protect herds in their respective jurisdictions within areas where wild horses and burros are found roaming, promote the integrity of the records in the system, or carry out a statutory responsibility of the BLM or Federal government. Routine use C facilitates the sharing of information with the Executive Office of the President to resolve issues concerning individuals' records. Routine use D provides additional clarification on external organizations and circumstances where disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled. Routine use E assists other Federal agencies with reconciling or reconstructing data files or responding to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains. Routine use F allows the BLM to share information with agencies when relevant for hiring and retention or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or benefit. Routine use G allows the BLM to share information with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to conduct records management inspections. Routine use H allows the BLM to share information with external entities, such as State, territorial, and local governments, and Tribal organizations needed in response to court orders and/or for discovery purposes related to litigation. Routine use I allows the BLM to share information with an expert, consultant, grantee, shared service provider, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system. Routine use L allows the BLM to share information with the OMB during the coordination and clearance process in connection with legislative affairs. Routine use M allows the BLM to share information with the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States. Routine use N allows the BLM to share information with the news media and the public if there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information. Routine use P allows the BLM to share information with the FS regarding the disposition of FS-managed wild horses and burros cared for by the BLM, as part of the overall multiple-use mission under the authority of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12), DOI may disclose information from this system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)) to aid in the collection of outstanding debts owed to the Federal Government.
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to records about individuals that are maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act defines an individual as a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DOI by complying with DOI Privacy Act regulations at 43 CFR part 2, subpart K, and following the procedures outlined in the Records Access, Contesting Record, and Notification Procedures sections of this notice.
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
You should be aware your entire comment including your personally identifiable information, such as your address, phone number, email address, or any other personal information in your comment, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so.
INTERIOR/BLM-37, Wild Horse and Burro Program (WHBP).
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at the BLM, National Operations Center, Building 50, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Records may also be located at BLM headquarters, regional, State, district, and field offices responsible for managing the WHBP. A current listing of offices and contact information may be obtained by visiting the BLM website at
Division Chief, Office of the Director, (Wild Horse and Burro), U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 201 Stephenson Pkwy, Ste. 1200, Norman, Oklahoma 73072.
The Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1331-40; The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1701-87; 43 CFR part 4700, Protection, Management, and Control of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros; and 31 U.S.C. 7701, Taxpayer identifying number.
The primary purposes of the records are to:
(1) Identify individuals who have applied to obtain custody of a wild horse or burro through adoption, sale, or transfer;
(2) Document the rejection, suspension, or granting of the request for adoption, sale, or transfer;
(3) Monitor compliance with laws and regulations concerning maintenance of adopted and fostered animals;
(4) Identify contractors, employees, volunteers, and service providers required to perform program functions;
(5) Provide necessary program management information to other agencies involved in management of wild horses and burros on public lands: the FS and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); and
(6) Identify and assign level of system access required by BLM employees, contractors, and program personnel.
This system includes applicants, individuals or organizations who have applied to adopt wild horse(s) and burro(s), adopted one or more wild horse(s) or burro(s), and bought wild horse(s) and burro(s) that meet sale criteria as outlined under law; foster care providers who have fostered one or more wild horse(s) or burro(s); and also includes Federal, State, and local government agencies and officials involved in the transfer of excess wild horse(s) and burro(s). This system also includes contractors and contract operators of facilities; veterinarians who are serving the program; volunteers; service providers; and BLM, FS, and APHIS employees with WHBP responsibilities. This system may also contain records on corporations and other business entities, which are not subject to the Privacy Act. However, records pertaining to individuals acting on behalf of corporations and other business entities may reflect personal information that may be maintained in this system of records.
The WHBP system of records contains paper and electronic records, which may include but is not limited to:
• WHBP titled adoption case files. These records contain non-serialized case files documenting adoptions that result in title to the animal being transferred by the BLM to individual or group adopters. Records consist of a private maintenance and care agreements, applications, adoption incentive program files, screening checklists, certificates of title, title eligibility letters, compliance records, body fat worksheets, receipts for payment of fees, facility certification for five or more animals, power of attorney forms, correspondence with adopters, reports of escape, theft, or death of adopted animals, and requests for replacement animals with veterinarian's statement. The WHBP system includes additional compliance documentation such as reports of inhumane treatment, investigation reports, compliance checks, inspections, photos and videos, notice of need for corrective action letters, citations, maintenance and care agreement letters, cancellation of agreement letters, records of repossession of animal, notices of violation, decision letters, and BLM Form 1842-1, Information on Taking Appeals to the Interior Board of Land Appeals.
• Untitled adoption case files. These records may include non-serialized case files documenting approved adoptions for which a request for title was never received. Records consist of private maintenance and care agreements, applications, adoption incentive program files, screening checklists, compliance records, body fat worksheets, receipts for payment of fees, facility certification for five or more animals, power of attorney forms, correspondence with adopters, reports of escape, theft, or death of adopted animals, requests for replacement animals with veterinarian's statement, and request to terminate agreements. These records may include additional compliance documentation as described in titled cases.
• Applications that do not result in adoption. These records may consist of applications, screening checklists, and related maps, correspondence, and duplicate adoption case files that are non-record copies of adoption documents.
• Animal preparation case files. These may consist of records documenting the physical examination, freeze-marking, and treatment of animals in preparation for private maintenance by adopters, as well lab tests, veterinarian certificates, veterinarian treatment records, health certificates, and other preparation records.
• Animal shipping case files. The animal case files may include bill of lading, shipping manifest, vehicle inspections, instructions to truck driver, diagram of trailer, hauling permits and licenses.
• Animal training facility case files. Training facility case files may consist of agreements with prisons or other training facility, training evaluation forms, training certificates, and daily training records.
• Adoption databases. The adoption databases support the WHBP and are accessible to authorized employees on their government furnished equipment. They contain information derived from hard copy records authorized for destruction.
• WHBP master file. The WHBP master file may contain information on the care animals are receiving, any changes in location of the animals, and documentation about the passage of animal title to the adopter. It also provides data that allows assessment of the short-term and long-term effects on public lands where wild horses and burros graze.
These records may contain the applicant's (individual) full name, address, home or cell phone number, and email; applicant's (Animal Group/Organization) name, tax identification or Federal Employer Identification Number, address of housed animals, phone number, and email address; assigned veterinarian's name, address, and phone number; Adopter or Foster's name, address, driver's license number, date of birth, Social Security number, home phone, alternate phone, email address, care facility owner's last name, physical facility address and phone number; and adoption location, adoption site codes, freeze-mark, signalment key, adoption key code, and adoption fee.
Records for BLM employees, contractors and other officials covered by this system contain contact and identification information such as name, job title, business address, email and phone number, job qualifications, certifications, services supplied, system access roles, and approval authorities. This information is necessary to administer the WHBP and identify suppliers of services or products needed for WHBP administration.
Information within the WHBP primarily comes from members of the public or animal groups or organizations
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOI as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
(1) DOI or any component of DOI;
(2) Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals;
(3) Any DOI employee or former employee acting in his or her official capacity;
(4) Any DOI employee or former employee acting in his or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private representation of the employee; or
(5) The U.S. Government or any agency thereof, when DOJ determines that DOI is likely to be affected by the proceeding.
B. To a congressional office when requesting information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
C. To the Executive Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record or a third party on that person's behalf, or for a purpose compatible with the reason for which the records are collected or maintained.
D. To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, State, territorial, local, Tribal, or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
E. To an official of another Federal agency to provide information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains.
F. To Federal, State, territorial, local, or Tribal or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing, or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
G. To representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to conduct records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
H. To State, territorial, and local governments and Tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to court order and/or discovery purposes related to litigation, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
I. To an expert, consultant, grantee, shared service provider, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.
J. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(1) DOI suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(2) DOI has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, DOI (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal government, or national security; and
(3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DOI's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
K. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOI determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
L. To the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the coordination and clearance process in connection with legislative affairs as mandated by OMB Circular A-19.
M. To the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States.
N. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Public Affairs Officer in consultation with counsel and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, where there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
O. To organizations and individuals for the purpose of responding to requests about the government's operations as it pertains to the disposition of wild horses and burros to include adoption, sale, transfer, death, or specific facility.
P. To the FS regarding the disposition of FS-managed wild horses and burros cared for by the BLM WHBP as part of their overall multiple-use missions under the authority of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
Paper records are contained in file folders stored within locked file cabinets located in restricted access areas at BLM district and field offices. Electronic records are stored on disk, system hard drives, tape, or other appropriate media.
Records may be retrieved by applicant name, Social Security number, driver's license number, State, organization name, and freeze mark.
Records are retained under the Departmental Records Schedule (DRS), General Records Schedule (GRS), and BLM Records Retention Catalog, Schedule 4—Property Use and Disposal Records, Items 4/8a through 4/8g, 4/8i, and 4/8j(1), which was approved by NARA (N1-49-98-1, N1-49-90-1 and N1-049-09-4).The records disposition may be either temporary or permanent depending on the specific record. Temporary records include adoption records, applications, animal preparation, shipping and facility case files, and other related records that are
The records contained in this system are safeguarded in accordance with 43 CFR 2.226 and other applicable security and privacy rules and policies. During normal hours of operation, paper records are maintained in secure cabinets and/or in secure file rooms under the control of authorized personnel.
Computerized records systems follow the National Institute of Standards and Technology privacy and security standards as developed to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Access to records in the system is limited to authorized personnel who have a need to access the records in the performance of their official duties, and each user's access is restricted to only the functions and data necessary to perform that person's job responsibilities. System administrators and authorized users are trained and required to follow established internal security protocols and must complete all security, privacy, and records management training and sign the DOI Rules of Behavior. A Privacy Impact Assessment was completed for the associated information system under the BLM WHBP to ensure that Privacy Act requirements are met, and appropriate privacy controls were implemented to safeguard the personally identifiable information contained in the systems.
An individual requesting access to their records should send a written inquiry to the applicable System Manager identified above. DOI forms and instructions for submitting a Privacy Act request may be obtained from the DOI Privacy Act Requests website at
An individual requesting amendment of their records should send a written request to the applicable System Manager as identified above. DOI instructions for submitting a request for amendment of records are available on the DOI Privacy Act Requests website at
An individual requesting notification of the existence of records about them should send a written inquiry to the applicable System Manager as identified above. DOI instructions for submitting a request for notification are available on the DOI Privacy Act Requests website at
None.
72 FR 67956 (December 3, 2007); modification published at 73 FR 17376 (April 1, 2008), and 86 FR 50156 (September 7, 2021).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Missouri Museum 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.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Candace Sall, University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology 1020 Lowry Sreet, Columbia, MO 65211, telephone (573) 882-9157, 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 Missouri Museum of Anthropology, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing at least, 457 individuals have been reasonably identified and 38,132 associated funerary objects from 57 sites (see site descriptions). In the 1950s and 1960s, American Archaeology Division at the University of Missouri completed several surveys and excavations under contract for the National Park Service, and later for the Corps of Engineers, in Benton, Cedar, Dade, Henry, Hickory, Polk and St. Clair Counties, Missouri. In 2009, the Kansas City Corps of Engineers determined the work on these sites occurred before land was purchased and control of the collection was passed to the University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology.
23BE3, Wray-Martin Mound I, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains 16 individuals, including one child (aged 6-8 years.), one infant, one adolescent (aged 14-16.5 years), 12 adults, one adult male, excavated in 1963 by W. Raymond Wood and UMC staff as part of the Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir project. This site also contains 341 associated funerary objects, including 131 debitage, one hammerstone, 11 misc. shells, one shell bead, two soil samples, one bone awl in two parts, one cut/modified wolf maxilla, one gouge, 28 projectile point/knife (including one oval knife, one Scallorn point, two Rice side notched points), 22 bifaces, six misc. stone, 134 misc. faunal fragments, one flake tool (uniface scraper), and one drill.
23BE6, Fairfield Mound, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains 43 individuals, including 28 adults, two adult females, three adult males, three children (aged 1-3, 1-3, 5-9 years), two adolescents (both aged 8-14 years), four infants, and one individual, excavated in 1958-1964 by W. Raymond Wood and UMC staff as part of the Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir project. This site also contains 4,054 associated funerary objects, including 101 ceramic fragments, 2,162 debitage, 106 misc. shell fragments, 830 misc. faunal fragments, 27 cores, seven groundstones, two mano, one stone abrader, two hammerstones, two soil samples, 51 shell beads, 69 bone beads, 26 utilized flakes/expedient tools, four drills, 177 bifaces, 328 projectile points/knife, one bone awl, one bone tool, 15 hematite, 90 misc. stone (including five calcite), five pollen samples, one sandstone, one shell gorget, 17 glass fragments, two wood (including one copper stained piece of wood), one seed, one fossil, 21 metal fragments, one metal button, and two charcoal samples.
23BE108, No site name, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by UMC staff in 1960, as part of the Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir Project. This site also contains 4,501 associated funerary objects, including 3,360 misc. faunal fragments, 532 misc. stone, one projectile point/knife, 141 misc. shell, 416 debitage, one historic ceramic fragment, eight charred wood, eight seeds, three soil samples and 21 charcoal samples, and 10 metal fragments.
23BE117, Karr's Camp Mound, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains nine individuals, including six adults, one infant, one child (aged 4-8 years); and one individual, excavated by UMC W. Raymond Wood and UMC staff 1962-1963 as part of the Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir Project. This site also contains 253 associated funerary objects, including 83 debitage, two flake tools (including a possible scraper), six bifaces, one drill, 16 projectile point/knives (including seven Scallorn points, two Cooper points, two Rice side notched points), three hematite, five misc. shell, 13 shell beads (including two conch shell disc beads, one Anculosa bead), two bone beads, two worked bone objects, two wood fragments, 101 misc. faunal fragments, and 17 misc. stone.
23BE118, Devil's Bluff Mound, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by Rolland E. Pangborn and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Harry S Truman Dam and Reservoir project. This site also contains 124 associated funerary objects, including 82 debitage, two bifaces, 10 projectile point/knives (including three Rice side notched points, one “other dart”, two dart point tips, four Scallorn points), three ground hematite, two misc. stone, two misc. shell, five snail shell, nine misc. faunal fragments, two bone beads, one soil sample, three pollen samples, one (charred) wood, and two charcoal samples.
23BE120, Cairn Bluff, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by University of Missouri staff as part of the Harry S Truman Dam and Reservoir project in 1962 by Rolland Pangborn, Donna Roper, and University of Missouri staff for contract DACW41-77-C-0132. This site also contains two associated funerary objects, including one hafted biface and one hematite.
23BE128, Wray-Martin Mound 2, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains six individuals, including four adults, one child (aged 2-6 years), and one adolescent, excavated in 1963 by W. Raymond Wood, Edward Sudderth, and University of Missouri staff as part of the Harry S Truman Dam and Reservoir project. This site also contains 144 associated funerary objects, including 27 debitage, one flake tool, 10 bifaces, 11 projectile points/knife, two ground hematite, one misc. stone, one gastropod/snail, four charcoal samples, one soil sample, 15 dog faunal fragments remains (including one dog mandible with teeth), three copper beads, five bone beads, one misc. shell, two Anculosa shell beads, four historic ceramics, one drill, and 55 misc. faunal fragments.
23BE135, Melanin Mound 1, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains eight individuals, including seven adults and one child (aged 2-3 years), excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Harry S Truman Dam and Reservoir project. This site also contains 245 associated funerary objects, including 10 Anculosa shell beads, seven projectile points/knife (including one knife fragment), 32 misc. faunal fragments, two bone beads, two bifaces, one flake tool, one groundstone fragment, 151 debitage, 12 misc. stone, one soil sample, two pollen sample, and 24 charred hickory nutshell fragments.
23BE136, Melanin Mound 2, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains 12 individuals, including nine adults, one adult male, one child (aged 2-4 years), and one juvenile, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Harry S Truman Dam and Reservoir project. The site also contains 357 associated funerary objects, including 58 debitage, two hematite, one groundstone fragment, 45 misc. stone, three limonite, 29 misc. shell, one gastropod/snail shell, 11 soil samples, 13 projectile point/knife (including eight Rice side notched points, two chipped stone knife fragments, one projectile point base), one charcoal sample, 12 biface fragments, 93 dog faunal fragments remains, five polished bone objects, and 83 misc. faunal fragments.
23BE137, Barren Cairn, Benton County, Missouri. This site contains five individuals, including four adults and one child (aged less than 5 years), excavated by Rolland E. Pangborn and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Harry S Truman Dam and Reservoir project. This site also contains 88 associated funerary objects, including 17 debitage, 15 flake tools, two projectile points/knife, 22 biface, one groundstone, one hematite, one limonite, two soil samples, three pollen samples, and 24 misc. faunal fragments.
23CE32, Buck's Cave, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains one individual, excavated by R. Bruce McMillan, Rolland E. Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff in 1965 as part of the Hackleman Corner Reservoir project. This site also contains 246 associated funerary objects, including 159 debitage, 51 misc. shell, one charcoal sample, and 35 misc. faunal fragments.
23CE104, Simmons Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains six individuals, including five adults and one child, excavated in 1961 by Carl H. Chapman and University of Missouri staff as part of the Stockton Lake/Reservoir project. This site also contains 133 associated funerary objects, including 41 debitage, nine misc. stone, two charcoal samples, two soil samples, two cores, two bifaces, two scrapers, two unifaces, one drill, 25 misc. faunal fragments, two coyote claws, 33 projectile points (including 28 Scallorn points, one Rice side notched point, one Gary point, three projectile points), and 10 ceramic fragments.
23CE111, Mache Hollow Shelter, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated in 1963 by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland E. Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff as part of the Stockton Lake/Reservoir project. This site also contains eight associated funerary objects, including eight misc. faunal fragments.
23CE119, Coy Jones Farm Cabin Cairn, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated in 1961 by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland E. Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff as part of the Stockton Lake/Reservoir project. This site also contains one associated funerary object, including one misc. faunal fragments.
23CE122, Clemons Mounds, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains 27 individuals, including 12 adults (two of which are possibly male), 14 children, and one infant, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland E. Pangborn, R. Bruce McMillan, and University of Missouri staff 1962-1963 as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains 565 associated funerary objects, including 233 debitage, 42 ceramic fragments (including one historic ceramic), one drill, four bifaces, 11 cores, 45 misc. stone, eight limestone, 123 misc. faunal fragments, two groundstones, five shell beads, 16 bone bead, 16 snail shells, two flake tools, and 57 projectile points (including 13 Rice side-notched points, 33 Cooper points, one knife, one Guffy-like point, one Fresno point, three darts, one table rock stem, and one other hafted).
23CE123, Broyles Cairn, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains four individuals, including one adult, one adolescent (aged 9.5-14.5 years), one child (aged 7.5-12.5 years), and one infant (aged 1.5-2 years), collected by Carl Chapman and University of Missouri staff 1961 as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains 643 associated funerary objects, including 110 debitage, nine biface, 17 misc. stone, 42 misc. shells, 150 shell beads (including 135 Anculosa shell beads), 21 bone beads (including 11 larger disk beads previously labeled as tubular beads and five tubular beads), 176 misc. faunal fragments, 26 projectile points (including four Scallorn points, seven Huffaker points, two Washita points, one hafted biface, one Fresno point, eight Cahokia points and four Rice side-notched points), five bone pin fragments, one celt, one mano, 52 ground hematite, 27 ceramic fragments, two ceramic (pipe) fragments, two seeds, one groundstone, and one hammerstone.
23CE135, Little Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains one individual, collected from the surface in 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains five associated funerary objects, including one mano, one metate, one axe fragment, and two debitage.
23CE141, DeGraffenreid Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by Rolland Pangborn and University of Missouri staff 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains 11 associated funerary objects, including one biface, two debitage, and eight misc. faunal fragments.
23CE148, Umber Point Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains 24 individuals, including 11 adults, two adult females, six children, and five infants, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff 1965 as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains 515 associated funerary objects, including 35 projectile points (including four Rice side-notched points, two Scallorn points, one Cupp type point, one other point), one biface, three flake tools, one core, 225 debitage, 15 misc. stone, one sandstone, two hematite, 14 fragments of groundstone pipe, 38 shell beads (including 12 Marginella, 15 Anculosa, three tubular conch shell), one ceramic fragment, two drill, one groundstone, four mano, five ochre, 145 misc. faunal fragments, one bone awl, four polished bone objects, two worked bone objects, two bone beads, two turtle carapaces, three charred wood, one nutshell, two soil samples, three pollen samples, and two misc. shells.
23CE150, Sorter's Bluff Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains 27 individuals, including 12 adult, three adult males, three adult females, one adolescent, five children, and three infants, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff, 1965, as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains 820 associated funerary objects, including five projectile points (including one Scallorn point, one Reed point, one other point, two Harrel Cahokia points), 115 debitage, one biface, 11 misc. stone, 185 misc. faunal fragments, 18 seeds, five soil samples, one ceramic fragments, 319 shell beads (including 19 periwinkle, six conch disc, one Olivella, 42 Anculosa, 50 Marginella), 36 worked bone objects (including one spatulate), one turtle shell bowl, one mano, two groundstones, five stone axes, one ochre, 11 antler tools, two bone beads, 99 misc. shell, and two shell objects.
23CE152, Bowling Stone Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains eight individuals, including one adult male, four adults, one adolescent, one child, and one infant, excavated in 1965 by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff as part of the Stockton Lake/Reservoir archaeological salvage project. This site also contains 1,105 associated funerary objects, including 126 debitage, one groundstone fragment, five limestone, one misc. stone, three bifaces, six misc. shell, 426 ceramic fragments, four pollen samples, nine deer bone tool fragments, one shell brooch, two partially reconstructed celts, two partially reconstructed mano, 448 misc. faunal fragments, five Scallorn points, and 66 botanical seeds (including three nutshells and five charred corn kernels).
23CE155, Hogback Cairn, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains seven individuals, including one adult female, four adults, and two children (aged 3-5 and 6-10 years), collected by Robert Bray, and UMC staff 1954 as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. Based on archives, this is the same site as 23CE34. This site also contains 46 associated funerary objects, including seven debitage, two sandstone, 11 misc. stone, 23 misc. faunal fragments, one biface, and two misc. shell.
23CE190, Amity Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains three individuals, including two adults and one child, collected by Bruce McMillan, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff in 1964, as part of the Hackleman Corner Reservoir
23CE198, Alberta Mound, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains two individuals, including one adult and one child, excavated by Bruce McMillan, Rolland Pangborn and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Hackleman Corner Reservoir project, which was never built. This site also contains 364 associated funerary objects, including 75 misc. faunal fragments, four shell bead fragments (conch), 40 misc. shell, 105 debitage, 133 misc. stone, three groundstone pipe fragments, three cores, and one possible knife tip.
23DA201, Morgan Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains 14 individuals, including six adults, six children, one infant, and one individual, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff in 1965 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 30 associated funerary objects, including 21 debitage, two misc. faunal fragments, one projectile point, two misc. stone, two sandstone, and two misc. botanicals.
23DA216, Sand Bluff Cairn, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains one individual, excavated in 1964 by R. Bruce McMillan and the University of Missouri staff as part of the Stockton Lake/Reservoir archaeological salvage project. This site also contains 340 associated funerary objects, including 253 debitage, three misc. stone, one misc. faunal fragments, three flake tools, six dart points, one other biface, one core, 45 ceramic fragments, 21 hafted bifaces (including 13 Scallorn points, five Rice side notched points, one Marshall point, one Standlee Langtry point, one Guffy-like point), one corn kernel, one misc. seed, one galena, and three charcoal samples.
23DA219, Matthews Cairn/Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains 14 individuals, including seven adults, one adult male, one adolescent (aged ~14 years), and five children (aged 3-6, 8-9, 10-13, 8-14 and 7-12 years), excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 619 associated funerary objects, including 62 debitage, two flake tool, four misc. stone, one ochre, 19 bone beads, 52 misc. shell, one gastropod/snail, 53 shell beads, three pollen samples, eight projectile point/knife, three bifaces, one sandstone abrader, one misc. sandstone, six bone awls, two worked bone tools, one elbow pipe fragment, one jar, 63 ceramic fragment, three mano, 61 seeds (including approximately one oz burned nutshells and four charred corn kernels), four soil samples, two charcoal samples, and 266 misc. faunal fragments.
23DA221, Comstock Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains one adult female, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 919 associated funerary objects, including 24 ceramic fragments, two flake tools, 14 bifaces, nine projectile points, one groundstone (nuttingstone), 42 misc. faunal fragments, two rolled silver metal items, three copper fragments, 12 shell beads (thin tubes), 632 glass/porcelain beads, two pollen samples, and 176 debitage.
23DA222, Tunnel Bluff Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains 13 individuals, including four adults, two adolescents (aged 9-14 and 16-18 years), four children (aged 2-3, 3.5-5, 5-7 and 9.5-11 years), two infants (aged 6 months-2 years), and one fetal infant, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 308 associated funerary objects, including 73 debitage, 26 misc. faunal fragments, 12 misc. sandstone, two sandstone slabs, 52 bone tool fragments, 25 bone beads, three pollen samples, 10 Scallorn points, five other points, five bifaces, one drill, four ceramic fragments, two groundstone pipes, five mano, one hammerstone, one hematite, two turtle shell bowls, 37 misc. shell, 40 shell beads, one misc. stone, and one soil sample.
23DA225, Bunker Hill Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains 29 individuals, including one adult female, nine adults, 14 children, and five infants, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 1,019 associated funerary objects, including 125 debitage, seven flake tools, 13 bifaces, 20 projectile point/knife (including two Scallorn points), one drill, seven misc. stone, 298 shell beads, one hematite, two groundstone pipes, one celt, one mano, one worked bone awl, two bone beads, 16 worked bone tools, seven soil samples, 48 misc. faunal fragments, three turtle shells, one charred wood, 123 ceramic fragments, six misc. shell, and 336 botanical (including 140 charred hickory and hazelnut nuts and 192 charred corn kernels).
23DA226, Divine Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains 30 individuals, including nine adult males, 10 adults, three individuals, six children, two infants, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff in 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 666 associated funerary objects, including 25 debitage, nine bifaces, 12 hematite, three hammerstones, 28 misc. shell fragments, seven shell beads, three shell gorget, three soil samples, two pollen samples, one mano, one misc. stone, one greenstone celt, one bone bead, four bone tool fragments, one tip of a deer ulna tool, one fragment of large bone spatulate, three bone awl, three modified turtle fragments, 16 projectile points/knife (including one knife, seven Scallorn points, one WRE point, one other point), one clay pipe, two groundstone pipes, 296 misc. faunal fragments, 190 faunal remains from dog burial, 47 ceramic fragments, and six seeds.
23DA237, Turnback Cairn, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and UMC staff in 1964 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 114 associated funerary objects, including 79 debitage, one pebble chopper/uniface, seven bifaces, one drill, 13 projectile point/knives (including one Marshall point, two Scallorn points, five Reed points, one Keota point, one Guffy-like point, one dart; two misc. hafted bifaces), one groundstone mano, three misc. stone, eight wood, and one pollen sample.
23DA246, Paradise Tree Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains 11 individuals, including two adult males, one adult female, two adults, two adolescents, three children, and one infant, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1965 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 334 associated funerary objects, including 88 debitage, two hematite, one limestone, 20 misc. shell, three soil samples, three pollen samples, seven projectile points (including two corner notched dart points, one Scallorn point, and four Rice side notched points), two ceramic fragments, one ceramic pipe (four fragments), one bone spatulate (broken), 16 bone spatulate fragments, one bone awl, four bone beads, two biface fragments, 163 shell beads, two misc. stone, 16 misc. faunal fragments, one wood, and one charcoal sample.
23DA250, Eureka Mound, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains
23DA269, No site name, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, collected by P. Nichols, and Espey, Huston and Associates in 1967 as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains one associated funerary object, including one drill.
23HE1, Don Bell Site, Henry County, Missouri. This site contains one individual, excavated in 1950 by University of Missouri staff. Part of the Harry S Truman Reservoir collection. This site also contains 156 associated funerary objects, including one misc. stone, one soil sample, and 154 ceramic fragments.
23HE139, Mandrake Mound, Henry County, Missouri. This site contains 13 individuals including, six adults, three adult males, two juveniles, one child (aged 2-4 years), and one adolescent (aged 12-13 years), excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff as part of the Harry S Truman Reservoir project. This site also contains 45 associated funerary objects, including 22 debitage, four sandstone, two misc. stone, five misc. shells, seven soil samples, three misc. faunal, and two pollen samples.
23HE145, Chauncey Site, Henry County, Missouri. This site contains one adult (possibly female), excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff in 1962 as part of the Harry S Truman Reservoir Project. This site also contains 16 associated funerary objects, including one groundstone mano/hammerstone, one curved knife, one double pointed flint tool, 11 misc. faunal fragments (including one beaver tooth), and two soil samples.
23HE147, Gobbler's Knob Cairn, Henry County, Missouri. This site contains five individuals, including two adults, one adult female, one adult male, and one infant, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn and UMC staff in 1962 as part of the Harry S. Truman Reservoir project. This site also contains 112 associated funerary objects, including 33 debitage, two biface, eight misc. stone, three ochre, five wood, one nutshell, eight misc. shell, 39 misc. faunal fragments, one metal fragment, one charcoal sample, one fossil, six pollen samples, and four soil samples.
23HE148, Ilo Cairns, Henry County, Missouri. This site contains two individuals, including one adult and one child (aged 3-5 years), excavated in 1960 by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and University of Missouri staff as part of the Harry S Truman Reservoir project. This site also contains 278 associated funerary objects, including 121 debitage, one core, one scraper, two bifaces, one Scallorn point, eight sandstones (one is tear-drop shaped and one is bipointed), seven misc. stone, one limestone, two soil samples, 62 gastropods, 65 misc. faunal fragments, six seeds, and one charcoal sample.
23HE150, Eckardt Cairn, Henry County, Missouri. This site contains 15 individuals, including one adolescent (aged 11-14 years), 10 adults, one adult male, and three individuals, excavated by W. Raymond Wood, Rolland Pangborn, and UMC staff in 1968 as part of the Harry S. Truman Reservoir project. This site also contains 554 associated funerary objects, including 41 debitage, two cores, 6 projectile points (including four Scallorn points and two rice side notched points), one clay pipe, 14 misc. stone, 339 misc. faunal fragments, one groundstone fragment, one gorget, 49 shell beads (including 35 Anculosa, four conch, five Marginella, six tubular), three bone awls, three flake tool (including one scraper), one biface, one misc. shell, two bone beads, four botanical (including pecan shell), 22 crinoid beads, one pollen sample, 49 fossils, 13 limestone, and one soil sample.
23HI18, Lytle Cairn, Hickory County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1958 as part of the Harry S Truman Reservoir project. This site also contains 478 associated funerary objects, including 216 debitage, four bifaces, three misc. shell, 203 misc. faunal fragments, 33 ceramic fragments, one hematite, five misc. stone, eight projectile points, one flake tool, and four shell disk beads.
23HI30, Mount Indian Cairn/Murelle Mound, Hickory County, Missouri. This site contains six individuals, including three adults and three children, excavated in 1957 by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff as part of the Pomme de Terre/Harry S Truman Reservoir projects. This site also contains 931 associated funerary objects, including five ceramic vessels, 27 bifaces, 425 debitage, 74 ceramic fragments, six projectile points, one core, 29 hematite, one misc. stone, one sandstone, two ochre, 244 misc. faunal fragments, three canid teeth, seven flake tools, 63 misc. shell, and 43 shell beads.
23HI87, No site name, Hickory County, Missouri. This site contains one individual, collected by W. Raymond Wood and UMC in 1957 as part of the Harry S Truman Reservoir project. This site also contains nine associated funerary objects, including nine misc. faunal fragments.
23HI149, Cave Knob Mound, Hickory County, Missouri. This site contains three individuals, including one adult and two children (aged 3 and 8-13 years), excavated by W. Raymond Wood and UMC staff as part of the Harry S. Truman Reservoir project. This site also contains 258 associated funerary objects, including one red ceramic fragment, 10 bifaces, two drills, 10 projectile points (including two Rice sided notched points, one Scallorn points, two projectile point bases, one chert knife), one sandstone mano, 33 misc. faunal fragments (including one modified wolf maxilla, three unmodified deer teeth), 156 utilized flakes, one core, and 44 debitage.
23HI172, Blackwell Cave, Hickory County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, Collected by Carl Falk and UMC staff in 1966 as part of the Pomme de Terre Reservoir project. This site also includes 11,127 associated funerary objects, including 8,354 misc. faunal fragments, 1,738 debitage, 19 misc. stone, 791 misc. shell, 22 bifaces, 15 hafted bifaces, two drills, three hematite, one wood, three worked bone objects, 20 charcoal samples, eight uniface, seven cores, 53 misc. botanical, 75 ceramic fragments, one ochre, 14 pollen samples, and one glass.
23PO165, Star Ridge Cairn, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains two individuals, including one adult and one child, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1957-1958 as part of the Pomme de Terre Reservoir project. This site also contains 93 associated funerary objects, including 20 debitage, four sandstones, one shell bead, two groundstone fragments, 65 misc. faunal fragments, and one hafted biface.
23PO300, Madrigal Mound, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains 19 individuals, including 10 adults, one adult female, two infant, three children, and three adolescents, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1962 as part of the
23PO301, Petite Cote Cairn, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1963 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 251 associated funerary objects, including 199 misc. faunal fragments, three soil samples, 38 debitage, one misc. stone, two lead objects, one Huffaker point, one biface, two brass fragments, and four misc. shells.
23PO304, Cordwood Cairn, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains six individuals, including one infant, two children, and three adults, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1963 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 616 associated funerary objects, including 44 debitage, 23 flake tools, three soil samples, two bifaces, five projectile points/knife, 100 misc. faunal fragments, three ceramic fragments, one gastropod, 433 shell beads, and two dolomite ear spools.
23PO306, Slick Rock Mound, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains 21 individuals, including two infants, two children (aged 10-12, 5-7 years), one adolescent (aged 12-16 years), nine adults, three adult males, and four adult females, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff 1962-1963 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 423 associated funerary objects, including nine ceramic fragments, 94 debitage, 25 flake tools, 13 limestone, 18 misc. stone, four sandstone, two bifaces, seven misc. shell, three seeds, one wood, 106 misc. faunal fragments, four soil samples, two drills, two bone awl fragments, three bone pins, eight shell tool fragments (two rings, six worked shell), 115 shell beads, one core, and six projectile points.
23PO307, King's Curtain Mound, Polk County, Missouri. King's Curtain Mound. This site contains 18 individuals, including one juvenile, one infant, three children (aged 2-6, 6-10, 9-12 years), one adolescent, two adult females, one adult male, seven adults, and two individuals, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1963 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 606 associated funerary objects, including 25 debitage, 17 projectile point/knife, one sandstone, three ochre/limonite, five misc. stone, one iron ore, seven soil samples, six seeds, one charcoal sample, 302 shell beads (including 200 Anculosa beads, three Marginella beads, 62 burnt shell beads, four disc beads), one fragmented groundstone pipe, two gorgets, one drill, two flake tools, 17 bifaces, three bone awls fragments, four worked bone objects, 14 misc. shell, one polished bone, 157 misc. faunal fragments, six clay pipes, 29 ceramic fragments, and one ceramic vessel.
23SR108, Monegaw Cave/Spy Cave, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains two individuals, including one adult and one child, and was found in collections in 2021 from the 1959 survey surface collection by Ralph Duerr and Mett Shippee. This site also contains 907 associated funerary objects, including 290 misc. faunal fragments (including five turtle shell fragments), 32 misc. shell, two bifaces, one wood, four unifaces, 575 debitage, and three misc. stone.
23SR111, Monte Verde Mound, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains one individual, collected by Carl H. Chapman and University of Missouri staff in 1960 as part of the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir project. This site also contains 126 associated funerary objects, including 122 misc. faunal fragments, one debitage, one Rice side notched point, one hafted biface, and one drill.
23SR135, Woody Cairn, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains one individual, collected by Carl H. Chapman and University of Missouri staff in 1960-1962 as part of the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir project. This site also includes 217 associated funerary objects, including 103 debitage, eight bifaces, 10 projectile points/knives, 81 sandstone, one misc. stone, one misc. shell, seven gastropods, one misc. faunal fragments, two wood, and three charcoal samples.
23SR138, Magistrate Bluff Mound, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains three individuals, including one adult female, one adolescent (aged 12-19.5 years), and one individual, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1963 as part of the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir project. This site also contains 223 associated funerary objects, including 112 debitage, 24 projectile points (including seven Rice side notched points, one dart chou biface, 16 Scallorn points, and two crisp ovate burls), 17 ochre, 20 bifaces, one hematite, three unifaces, two drills, one misc. shell, one worked bone object, 23 conch shell beads, 15 worked conch shell fragments, and four shell gorget fragments.
23SR141, Briley Creek, St Clair County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, collected by Carl H. Chapman and University of Missouri staff in 1965 as part of the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir project. This site also contains 544 associated funerary objects, including one ceramic fragment, 452 debitage, one drill, two flake tools, 14 bifaces, seven projectile points, 16 misc. stone, 33 misc. faunal fragments, 17 misc. shell, and one charcoal sample.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 457 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 38,132 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and The Osage Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
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 May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology must determine the most
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Dickinson State University 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.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Holly Gruhlke, Dickinson State University, 291 Campus Drive, Dickinson, ND 58601, telephone (701) 502-2080, 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 Dickinson State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were presumably removed from Stark County, ND. These remains consist of the following, with the assumption of affiliation with the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, presumed to belong to four individuals, consisting of the following inventory of remains: three crania; one skull; one thoracic vertebra; three reassociated sets of postcranial remains from three individuals: Right femur, right fibula, left radius, two left ribs, one lumbar vertebra. The right femur is transected at midshaft. Left femur, left tibia, left fibula, right talus. The left femur consists of five large fragments. Right tibia, left ulna, right os coxa, two right ribs, one lumbar vertebra. The right tibia is fractured postmortem from weather and wear. The remains are in variable condition. Two crania consisting of the anterior portion of the skull are in poor condition. One cranium is complete with fracturing to delicate bones and protuberances is colored a rich, mottled brown and is light weight and friable. The skull is complete and is in good condition. The postcranial remains are in good-to-poor condition from environmental exposure and subsequent use.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location.
Dickinson State University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of approximately four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
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 May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Dickinson State University 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. Dickinson State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Public notice.
The National Park Service gives public notice that, pursuant to the terms of Concession Contract CC-GATE015-03 and in accordance with NPS regulations, it intends to extend Concession Contract CC-GATE015-03 until April 14, 2025, or until the effective date of a new authorization, whichever comes first.
The National Park Service intends that the extension for Concession Contract CC-GATE015-03 will be effective from April 15, 2024, until April 14, 2025.
Kurt Rausch, Program Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 2410, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: 202-513-7156.
Concession Contract CC-GATE015-03 will expire on April 14, 2024. Under 36 CFR 51.23 the National Park Service proposes to extend this contract until April 14, 2025, or until the effective date of a new authorization, whichever comes first. The National Park Service has determined that the proposed extension is necessary to avoid an interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such an interruption. The extension of the existing contract does not confer or affect any rights with respect to the award of new contracts. The publication of this notice reflects the intent of the National Park Service but does not bind the National Park Service to extend the concession contract.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), The James Museum of Western and Wildlife Art 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.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Robin Nicholson, Executive Director, The James Museum, 150 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, telephone (727) 892-4200 Ext. 1013, 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 James Museum of Western and Wildlife Art and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of six cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The six objects of cultural patrimony are Pueblo of Jemez Carvings: Carving; Jemez Artist Unknown,
The James Museum of Western and Wildlife Art has determined that:
• The six objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, The James Museum of Western and Wildlife Art 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 James Museum of Western and Wildlife Art is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) 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.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Megon Noble, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of California, Davis, 412 Mrak Hall, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, telephone (530) 752-8501, 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 UC Davis and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals removed from Napa County, California have been reasonably identified. There are 2,298 associated funerary objects. Of that number, 2,243 lots of funerary objects have been located and 55 lots of objects are currently missing. The 2,243 located lots of associated funerary objects include: one lot of baked clay; 1,178 lots of used flakes, flake tools, and other chipped stone; 202 lots of unworked animal bone; 67 lots of worked animal bone; one lot of ceramic beads; 34 lots of worked stone; 132 lots of debitage; two lots of historic beads; nine lots of ground stone; five lots of miscellaneous organic material (plant material, seeds, charcoal); 206 lots of worked shell; 30 lots of ochre; 143 lots of projectile points; two lots of quartz crystals; and 231 lots of unworked shell. The 55 currently missing lots of associated funerary objects include 38 lots of chipped stone, one lot of unworked bone, two lots of worked bone, two lots of debitage, three lots of worked shell, six lots of projectile points, two lots of unworked shell, and one lot of miscellaneous materials. UC Davis continues to look for the missing associated funerary objects. UC Davis conducted a field school led by Peter Schulz at CA-NAP-448 in 1977 (UC Davis Accession 150).
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
UC Davis has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 2,298 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California; Kletsel Dehe Wintun of the Cortina Rancheria (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
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 May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UC Davis 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. UC Davis is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), The Children's Museum of Indianapolis intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Jennifer Noffze, The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, 3000 N Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46208, telephone (317) 334-3722, 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 Children's Museum of Indianapolis and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a worked shell. The shell was donated to the collection in 1930 by Louis S. Stockmann. The shell was originally found in a burial site located near Bird's Creek, on Chickamauga Creek, Hamilton County, Tennessee. It is culturally affiliated with The Muscogee (Creek) Nation. There is no known potentially hazardous substance used to treat this item.
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary object has been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, The Children's Museum of Indianapolis must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology (UTK) and the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (ARC) 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 or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Dr. Ozlem Kilic, University of Tennessee, Office of the Provost, 527 Andy Holt Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996-0152, telephone (865) 974-2454, 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 UTK and the ARC, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals from two distinct sites have been reasonably identified. The four associated funerary objects are one lot of two lots of faunal remains, one lot of ceramics, and one lot of lithics.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 39BK101, near Lake Campbell in Brookings County, South Dakota. These remains were exposed by animal activity in 1954 and removed from the site by a homeowner named Searles. They were taken to “State College” (possibly South Dakota State University), after which they were presumably transferred to the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (ARC). The ARC sent the remains to UTK for inventory in 1987. After the inventory project was completed, most of the remains were returned to the ARC and repatriated under South Dakota state law; however, a few bone fragments retained by UTK were found in the Department of Anthropology collections in 2021. No associated funerary objects are present at UTK; however, the ARC retained three lots of associated funerary objects. These are one lot of faunal remains, one lot of ceramics, and one lot of lithics. The associated funerary objects were not treated with any type of hazardous chemicals/substances nor treated with any type of preservation agent or chemical; however, the ceramic and lithic lots are marked with the site number and accession number.
In 1981, human remains were removed from the Hilde Gravel Pit (39LK7) in Lake County, South Dakota. The remains were found falling to the bottom of a gravel pit and reported to local law enforcement. They were removed from the site by Adrian Hannus of the Center for Western Studies at Augustana College and sent to John B. Gregg at the University of South Dakota School of Medicine for inventory. Gregg likely transferred the remains back to Hannus after analysis. Hannus probably transferred the individual to the ARC. The ARC sent the remains to the UTK Department of Anthropology for inventory in 1987. Most of the remains were returned to the ARC after completion of the inventory project and repatriated under South Dakota state law; however, bone fragments and teeth representing 1 individual were retained by UTK and were found in the Department of Anthropology collections in 2021. No associated funerary objects are present at UTK: however, the ARC retained one lot of associated funerary objects. This is one lot of faunal remains. The associated funerary objects were not treated with any type of hazardous chemicals/substances nor treated with any type of preservation agent or chemical.
These human remains and objects come from Brookings County and Lake County, SD. These counties are part of the treaty lands of the Santee Sioux (today both the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, and the Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska), as established in Executive Orders in 1867 and 1869. The human remains were not treated with any type of hazardous chemicals/substances, nor treated with any type of preservation agent or chemical.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The UTK and the ARC have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The four objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
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 May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UTK and the ARC 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. UTK and the ARC are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Missouri Museum 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.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Candace Sall, University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology 1020 Lowry Street, Columbia, MO 65211, telephone (573) 882-9157, 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 Missouri Museum of Anthropology, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 36 individuals have been reasonably identified and 22,739 associated funerary objects from 15 sites (see site descriptions) In the 1950s and 1960s, American Archaeology Division at the University of Missouri completed several surveys and excavations under contract for the National Park Service, and later for the Corps of Engineers, in Cedar, Dade, Hickory, Polk and St. Clair Counties, Missouri. In 2009, the Kansas City Corps of Engineers determine the work on these sites occurred before land was purchased and control of the collection was passed to the University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology.
23CE34, no site name, Cedar County, Missouri. This site contains six individuals, including two adults, two adolescents, and two children, collected by UMC staff as part of the Stockton Reservoir Project. This site also contains 432 associated funerary objects, including eight debitage, 70 misc. stone, 326 misc. faunal fragments, one antler tool, five petrified wood, five charcoal, 14 misc. shell, three groundstones and misc. botanical surface debris.
23DA207, Toler Cave, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated between 1961-64 by MU as part of the Stockton Lake Reservoir project. This site also contains 204 associated funerary objects, including 109 debitage, one biface, one projectile point, one core, 67 misc. shell, five ceramic fragments, and 20 misc. faunal fragments.
23DA235, no site name, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains a tooth from an adult, collected during a surface survey by Rolland Pangborn and University of Missouri staff in 1963 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 26 associated funerary objects, including two groundstones, two hammerstones, one uniface, three hafted bifaces, and 18 other bifaces.
23DA245, Elmer Long Shelter, Dade County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1961 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains four associated funerary objects, including misc. two faunal fragments and two ceramics fragments.
23HI34, no site name, Hickory County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, collected by Carl Chapman, likely in the 1950s as part of the Harry S Truman Reservoir project. No associated funerary objects are present.
23HI135, Holbert Bridge Mound, Hickory Country, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1957 as part of the Pomme de Terre Reservoir project. This site also contains 102 associated funerary objects, including 60 debitage, one core, two flake tools (including one scraper and one uniface), five bifaces, 30 projectile point/knives (including 29 Afton points), one groundstone, two misc. stone, and one soil sample.
23PO305, Colline Mound, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1963 as part of the Stockton Reservoir project. This site also contains 185 associated funerary objects, including 143 debitage, one projectile point, three flake tools, 11 limestone, two soil samples, 13 misc. faunal fragments, and 12 bifaces.
23PO308, no name site, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, collected by W. Raymond Wood and University of Missouri staff in 1963 as part of the Stockton Lake Reservoir project. This site also contains two associated funerary objects, including one debitage and one projectile point.
23PO312, no name site, Polk County, Missouri. This site contains one adult and was recorded by Pangborn in 1964 as part of the Stockton Lake Reservoir Project. This site also contains six associated funerary objects, including six misc. faunal fragments.
23SR21, Rock House Cave, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains two individuals, including one child and one adult, and the site was probably excavated by Carl H. Chapman, UMC, or by MU staff, potentially as early as 1930s, although the exact circumstances and date of acquisition are unknown. This site also contains 725 associated funerary objects, including 473 misc. faunal fragments, 76 debitage, three misc. stone, 57 misc. shell, 16 bifaces, one hafted biface, one hematite, two charcoal samples, six unifaces, 89 ceramics, and one seed.
23SR103, Rock House Shelter/Broulee Shelter, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains two adults, and Chapman or Mett Shippee likely recovered material in the 1950s as part of surveys, although the exact circumstances and date of acquisition are unknown. This site also contains 5,334 associated funerary objects, including 199 ceramic fragments, 3,622 debitage, three drills, 20 flake tools, 100 bifaces, 39 hafted bifaces, five core, five hematite, four mano, one groundstone, two hammerstones, 76 misc. stone, 620 misc. faunal fragments, 629 misc. shell, four wood, four seeds, and one charcoal sample.
23SR117, Harrison Shelter, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by Carl H. Chapman and University of Missouri staff in 1962 as part of the Kaysinger Bluff project. This site also contains 13,212 associated funerary objects, including 8,140 debitage, five cores, 47 flake tools, 88 bifaces, two drills, 27 projectile points, 61 sandstones, 17 ochre, 321 misc. stone, two groundstones, 10 daub, 83 ceramic fragments, 256 misc. shell, 4,089 misc. faunal fragments, one soil sample, 22 misc. botanicals, 32 wood, one galena, and eight charcoal samples.
23SR122, Gray Shelter, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains three individuals, including two adult males and one adult, excavated by Carl H. Chapman and University of Missouri staff in 1961 as part of the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir salvage project. This site also contains 2,132 associated funerary objects, including 894 misc. faunal fragments, 1,080 debitage, six misc. stone, 16 misc. shell, 29 bifaces, one hafted biface, six wood, seven uniface, three cores, one charcoal sample, 53 iron objects, 22 ceramic fragments (including Baytown plain ceramic fragments and four historic ceramics), two nuttingstones, three scrapers, and nine seeds.
23SR126, Cat Hollow Shelter, St. Clair County, Missouri. This site contains one adult, excavated by Rolland Pangborn and University of Missouri staff in 1961 as part of the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir salvage project. This site also contains 373 associated funerary objects, including 358 misc. faunal fragments, one ceramic fragment, one charcoal sample and 13 misc. stone.
23SRUNPROV4, unprovenienced individuals and funerary objects from St. Clair County from either 23SR21 or 23SR103. This site contains 13 individuals, including two adolescents (aged 14-18, 16-24 years), eight adult males, and three adults. Survey conducted by Carl Chapman and UMC staff from 1960-1962 for the HST Reservoir (formerly Kaysinger Bluff) project. This collection was identified in review of former KCCCOE collections in 2023 and belongs to either Rock House cave (23SR21) or Rock House shelter (23SR103), per the note inside the box. This site also contains two associated funerary objects, including one misc. botanical and one misc. faunal fragments.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 36 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 22,739 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and The Osage Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
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 May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Missouri Museum 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 University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Rochester Museum & Science Center (RMSC) 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.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Kathryn Murano Santos, Rochester Museum & Science Center, 657 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14607, telephone (585) 697-1929, 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 RMSC, and
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The ancestor was removed from the California Ranch Site (Hne 22-4) in Ontario County, NY. They were excavated during an RMSC expedition on June 4, 1953. No known individual was identified.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The ancestor was removed from the Morrow Point Site (Hne 033; Hne 003-4) in Ontario County, NY. They were excavated during an RMSC expedition in 1956. No known individual was identified.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The RMSC has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
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 May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the RMSC 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 RMSC is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Mount Holyoke College Art Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Abigail Hoover, Associate Director of Registration and Collections, Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, Lower Lake Road, South Hadley, MA 01075, telephone (413) 538-2492, 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 Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 11 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The seven sacred objects consist of catlinite pipe bowls and pipe stems. The four objects of cultural patrimony include a pair of gauntlet gloves, a jacket, a quiver, and a bow case.
Each of the 11 cultural objects in this notice are part of the Joseph Allen Skinner Museum collection, which was donated to the Trustees of Mount Holyoke College by Skinner after his death in 1946. Like many of the objects in the Skinner collection, there is no extant provenance information and it is unclear when these objects were acquired, though pictures show the display of these objects by Skinner as early as 1934.
Catlinite pipes are pipes made of catlinite, a type of mudstone that can only be found in parts of southwest Minnesota, southeastern South Dakota, and northwest Iowa, adjacent to the site of
The quiver and bow case, jacket, and gauntlet gloves in the Skinner Museum collection are imbued with ongoing historical, traditional, and/or cultural importance to the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe. The quiver and bow case are decorated with the spiritually significant practice of quillwork, the jacket is embroidered with beadwork using culturally significant colors and designs, and the gauntlet gloves possess floral beadwork that is particularly connected to the history and geography of the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe.
Based on the above definitions and a general knowledge of these objects possessing both ceremonial, spiritual, and cultural significance, the claim for repatriation to the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota will be honored.
The Mount Holyoke College Art Museum has determined that:
• The seven sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant,
• The four objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Mount Holyoke College Art Museum 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 Mount Holyoke College Art Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 13, 2024.
Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted by the date specified above in
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Elizabeth Vehmeyer, Assistant Coordinator, National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 7508, Washington, DC 20240 (mail); or at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the agency 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 that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The NPS uses the following forms to monitor the progress of each heritage area on the implementation of management plans and performance goals:
• 10-320 Annual Program Report—Part I Funding Report, NPS NHA Program Office uses the information collected to allocate funds, prepare the annual NPS Budget Justification, and respond to directives from Congress.
• 10-321 Annual Program Report—Part II Progress Report, NPS NHA Program Office and regional program offices use the information collected to track each heritage area management or coordinating entity's progress on management plan implementation. The NPS uses the information in the annual program reports and publications to inform individual heritage area evaluations.
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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a known lineal descendant connected to the human remains in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Bryon Schroeder, Center for Big Bend Studies/Sul Ross State University, Street Address, Alpine, TX 79832, telephone (432) 837-8339, 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 Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. These ancestral remains were recovered from the Millington Site (41PS14) in Presidio, Texas. They were salvaged in 2006 during a construction project by the city of Presidio from a backhoe trench initiated by the Presidio Sewer Line project. Geographical affiliation is consistent with the historically documented territory of the Mescalaro Apache but biological genetic data from nearby sites places the Lineal Descendants of La Junta de los Rios, in particular lineal descendant Xoxi Nayapiltzin, near the site at least 900 years ago contemporaneous with the known age of these ancestral remains. No Preservative was applied to any of the ancestral remains.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, a lineal descendant is connected to the human remains described in this notice.
The Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Xoxi Nayapiltzin is connected to the human remains described in this notice.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. The known lineal descendant connected to the human remains and associated funerary objects.
2. Any other lineal descendant not identified who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University 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 Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendant and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Gilcrease Museum 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.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after May 13, 2024.
Laura Bryant, Gilcrease Museum, 800 S Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK 74104, telephone (918) 596-2747, 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 Gilcrease Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. The two lots of associated funerary objects are faunal remains and sherds. These were removed from the Edward Marsh site in Scott County, AR, at an unknown date and came to Gilcrease Museum likely in the mid-20th century.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. The 173 lots of associated funerary objects are lithic tools, pipe fragments, sherds, shell and faunal fragments, and a ceramic bead. These were removed in 1942 from a Caddo River site (Soday site #165) in Clark County, AR, by Frank Soday, an avocational archaeologist. Gilcrease Museum purchased Soday's collection in 1982.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Gilcrease Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 175 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
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 May 13, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Gilcrease Museum 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 Gilcrease Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of call for nominations.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) proposes to appoint one new member to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting as administrative lead, is soliciting nominations for qualified persons to serve as members of the AMWG.
Nominations must be postmarked by April 26, 2024.
Nominations should be sent to Mr. Daniel Picard, Deputy Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, 125 S State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, UT 84138; or submitted via email to
Mr. William Stewart, Bureau of Reclamation, telephone (385) 622-2179, email at
The Grand Canyon Protection Act (Act) of October 30, 1992, Public Law 102-575, directs the Secretary to consult with the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States and with the general public, including members of the public with certain interests or affiliations, when preparing the requisite criteria and operating plans for Glen Canyon Dam. This group, designated the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group or AMWG, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary relative to the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam. The AMWG operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10.
The duties or roles and functions of the AMWG are in an advisory capacity
Prospective members of AMWG need to have a strong capacity for advising individuals in leadership positions, teamwork, project management, tracking relevant Federal government programs and policy making procedures, and networking with and representing their stakeholder group. Membership from a wide range of disciplines and professional sectors is encouraged.
Members of the AMWG are appointed by the Secretary and are comprised of:
a. The Secretary's Designee, who serves as Chairperson for the AMWG.
b. One representative each from the following entities: The Secretary of Energy (Western Area Power Administration), Arizona Game and Fish Department, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Southern Paiute Consortium, and the Pueblo of Zuni.
c. One representative each from the Governors from the seven basin States: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
d. Representatives from the general public as follows: two from environmental organizations, two from the recreation industry, and two from contractors who purchase Federal power from Glen Canyon Powerplant.
e. One representative from each of the following Interior agencies as ex-officio non-voting members: Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.
At this time, we are particularly interested in applications from representatives of the Hualapai Native American Tribe due to a vacancy from this Tribal community on the AMWG.
After consultation, the Secretary will appoint one new member to the AMWG. The member will be selected based on the individual's qualifications, as well as the overall need to achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints, subject matter expertise, regional knowledge, and representation of communities of interest. AMWG member terms are limited to 3 years from their date of appointment. Following completion of the individual's first term, the AMWG member may request consideration for reappointment to an additional term. Reappointment is not guaranteed.
Typically, AMWG will hold two in-person meetings and one webinar meeting per fiscal year. Between meetings, AMWG members are expected to participate in committee work via conference calls and email exchanges. Members of the AMWG and its subcommittees serve without pay. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services of the AMWG, members may be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the government service, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703.
Nominations should include a resume that provides an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, particularly information that will enable Interior to evaluate the nominee's potential to meet the membership requirements of the AMWG and permit Interior to contact a potential member. Please refer to the membership criteria stated in this notice.
Any interested person or entity may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the AMWG. Nominations from the seven basin states, as identified in this notice, need to be submitted by the respective Governors of those states, or by a state representative formally designated by the Governor. Persons or entities submitting nomination packages on the behalf of others must confirm that the individual(s) is/are aware of their nomination. Nominations must be postmarked no later than April 26, 2024 and sent to Mr. Daniel Picard, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 125 S State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, UT 84138.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is issuing a public notice of its intent to modify the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Privacy Act system of records, INTERIOR/WBR-7, Concessions. DOI is revising this notice to change the system bureau designation to be consistent with Reclamation's title, propose new and modified routine uses, and update all sections of the notice to accurately reflect management of the system of records. This modified system will be included in DOI's inventory of record systems.
This modified system will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses will be effective May 13, 2024. Submit comments on or before May 13, 2024.
You may send comments identified by docket number [DOI-2023-0024] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regina Magno, Associate Privacy Officer, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225,
Reclamation maintains the INTERIOR/WBR-7, Concessions, system of records. The purpose of this system is to manage concession operation records at Reclamation facilities from the inception of requests for proposals, during execution of a contract, and through the conclusion of the contract terms. The records are used by Reclamation to identify the person or business entities applying for concession opportunities, determine their ability to manage a concession operation, and aid in ensuring compliance with the terms of the concession agreement, contract, lease, or rental agreement.
DOI is publishing this revised notice to change the system bureau designation to reflect Reclamation's title; update the system manager and system location sections; expand on categories of individuals covered by the system, the categories of records and records source categories sections; update authorities for maintenance of the system; update the storage, safeguards, and records retention schedule; update the notification, records access, and contesting procedures; reorganize the sections and provide general updates in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108,
Additionally, Reclamation is changing the routine uses from a numeric to alphabetic list and is proposing to modify existing routine uses to provide clarity and transparency and reflect updates consistent with standard DOI routine uses. Routine use A was modified to further clarify disclosures to the Department of Justice or other Federal agencies when necessary, in relation to litigation or judicial proceedings. Routine use B has been modified to clarify disclosures to a congressional office to respond to or resolve an individual's request made to that office. Routine use D has been modified to allow Reclamation to refer matters to the appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign agencies, or other public authority agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting violations of, or for enforcing, or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license. Routine use J was slightly modified to allow Reclamation to share information with appropriate Federal agencies or entities when reasonably necessary to prevent, minimize, or remedy the risk of harm to individuals or the Federal Government resulting from a breach in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-17-12,
Reclamation is proposing to add new routine uses C, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, and N to facilitate sharing of information with agencies and organizations to ensure the efficient management of all land, facilities, and waterbodies under Reclamation's jurisdiction, promote the integrity of the records in the system, or carry out a statutory responsibility of Reclamation or the Federal Government. Proposed routine use C facilitates sharing of information with the Executive Office of the President to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom that record pertains. Proposed routine use E allows Reclamation to share information with an official of another Federal agency to assist in the performance of their official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing an individual's record. Proposed routine use F facilitates sharing of information related to hiring, issuance of a security clearance, or a license, contract, grant or benefit. Proposed routine use G allows Reclamation to share information with the National Archives and Records Administration to conduct records management inspections. Proposed routine use H allows Reclamation to share information with external entities, such as State, territorial and local governments and Tribal organizations needed in response to court orders and/or for discovery purposes related to litigation. Proposed routine use I allows Reclamation to share information with an expert, consultant, grantee, shared service provider, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system. Proposed routine use L allows Reclamation to share information with OMB during the coordination and clearance process in connection with legislative affairs. Proposed routine use M allows Reclamation to share information with the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States. Routine use N allows Reclamation to share information with the news media and the public, with approval by the Public Affairs Officer and Senior Agency Official for Privacy in consultation with counsel if there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12), DOI may disclose information from this system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)) to aid in the collection of outstanding debts owed to the Federal Government.
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to records about individuals that are maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act defines an individual as a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DOI by complying with DOI Privacy Act regulations at 43 CFR part 2, subpart K, and following the procedures outlined in the Records Access, Contesting Record, and Notification Procedures sections of this notice.
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
You should be aware your entire comment including your personally identifiable information, such as your
INTERIOR/Reclamation-7, Concessions.
Unclassified.
Reclamation records in this system are maintained at:
(1) Office of Dam Safety and Infrastructure, Asset Management Division, P.O. Box 25007, MS 86-67200 (AMD), Denver, CO 80225;
(2) Columbia-Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706;
(3) California-Great Basin Regional Office, Federal Office Building, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825;
(4) Lower Colorado Basin Regional Office, 500 Fir Street, Boulder City, NV 89005;
(5) Upper Colorado Basin Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, UT 84138;
(6) Missouri Basin and Arkansas-Rio Grande-Texas Gulf Regional Office, 2021 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101; and
(7) Area and Field offices located throughout the 17 western United States. Reclamation's Area and Field offices can be found at
Manager, Asset Management Division, Office of Dam Safety and Infrastructure, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, MS 8667200 (AMD), Denver, CO 80225.
Reclamation Act ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388 (June 17, 1902), as amended, codified at various sections of 43 U.S.C. Chapter 12; Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Public Law 89-72, as amended; Reclamation Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-493, Title VI; Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Public Law 102-575, Title XXVIII; and Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004, Public Law 108-447, Division J, Title VIII.
The purpose of this system is to manage concession operation records from the inception of requests for proposals, during execution of a contract, and through the conclusion of the contract terms. The records are used by Reclamation to identify the person, persons, or business entities applying for concession opportunities, determine their ability to manage a concession operation, and aid in ensuring compliance with the terms of the concession agreement, contract, lease, or rental agreement.
Individuals covered by this system include members of the public, applicants for concession opportunities, and contracted concessionaires. Records in this system pertaining to individuals contain information concerning sole proprietorships but may also reflect personal information. In addition, the system maintains records concerning corporations and other business entities which are not subject to the Privacy Act. However, records pertaining to individuals acting on behalf of the corporations or other business entities may reflect personal information that may be maintained in this system of records.
This system contains records related to the use of Reclamation land, facilities, or waterbodies under a concession agreement, concession contract, use authorization, rental or lease agreement with individuals, corporations, or other legal business entities providing services or concessions at Reclamation projects.
These records may contain information such as applicant's name, personal email address, personal mailing address, work or personal phone number, veteran status, financial information, Social Security number, tax identification number, name of insurance carrier, financial assets to verify whether the applicants have the financial viability to manage the proposed concession operation, applicant's ability to meet program requirements as outlined in Reclamation's authorities, historical documentation related to health information from applicants for use of special concession management priority authorities, management entity name, concession operation name, and agreement or contract number.
Records in this system are obtained from individual members of the public, Federal and non-Federal entities including corporate and commercial concessionaires whose records are maintained, and from other internal DOI systems as set forth under Reclamation regulations and policies.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOI as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
(1) DOI or any component of DOI;
(2) Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals;
(3) Any DOI employee or former employee acting in his or her official capacity;
(4) Any DOI employee or former employee acting in his or her individual capacity when DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private representation of the employee; or
(5) The United States Government or any agency thereof, when DOJ determines that DOI is likely to be affected by the proceeding.
B. To a congressional office when requesting information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
C. To the Executive Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record or a third party on that person's behalf, or for a purpose compatible with the reason for which the records are collected or maintained.
D. To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, State, territorial, local, Tribal, or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
E. To an official of another Federal agency to provide information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains.
F. To Federal, State, territorial, local, Tribal, or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
G. To representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to conduct records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
H. To State, territorial and local governments and Tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to court order and/or discovery purposes related to litigation, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
I. To an expert, consultant, grantee, shared service provider, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.
J. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(1) DOI suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(2) DOI has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DOI (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DOI's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
K. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOI determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
L. To the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the coordination and clearance process in connection with legislative affairs as mandated by OMB Circular A-19.
M. To the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States.
N. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Public Affairs Officer in consultation with counsel and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, where there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
O. To State or local government agencies for taxation purposes.
P. To non-Federal auditors under contract with DOI or Department of Energy or water user and other organizations with which Reclamation has written agreements permitting access to financial records to perform financial audits.
Concession records are managed securely at Reclamation offices. Paper records are contained in file folders stored in locked file cabinets at secured Reclamation facilities. Electronic records are contained in removable drives, computers, email, and electronic databases.
Records are retrieved by an individual's name, management entity name, concession operation name, and contract number or agreement number.
Records in this system are currently maintained in accordance with the following approved NARA Reclamation Records Retention Schedule, LND-8.00 Recreation Areas, Facilities, and Services—Permanent (N1-115-94-6).
A new Department Records Schedule (DRS) has been submitted to NARA and is pending approval. Once NARA approves the Mission DRS, the records related to this system will be maintained in accordance with DRS 2.2.3.19, Sustainably Manage Land Use, Recreation and Planning—Management Plans and Reports PERM. This record schedule covers recommendations for the development of recreational areas, recreational contracts and leases, and concession contracts that includes real property. These records are permanent and are cutoff when activity is completed, closed no later than the end of the fiscal year in which completed. The files are then transferred to the Federal Record Center at 10 years or earlier if volume warrants. Legal ownership is transferred to NARA 30 years after cutoff. Paper records are disposed of by shredding or pulping, and records contained on electronic media format are degaussed or erased in accordance with the applicable records retention schedule, NARA guidelines, and Departmental policy.
The records contained in this system are safeguarded in accordance with 43 CFR 2.226 and other applicable security rules and policies. Records are accessible only by authorized DOI employees, and other Federal government agencies and contractors who have contractual agreements with Reclamation to conduct activities related to land and realty. During normal hours of operation, paper records are secured in locked file cabinets under the control of authorized personnel. Computers and servers on which electronic records are stored are in secured DOI and/or contractor facilities with physical, technical, and administrative levels of security such as access codes, security codes, and security guards, to prevent unauthorized access to the DOI network and information assets. Access to DOI networks and data requires a valid username and password and is limited to DOI personnel and/or contractors who have a need to know of the information for the performance of their official duties. Access to contractor's networks and data requires restricted access limited to authorized personnel.
Computerized records systems follow the National Institute of Standards and Technology privacy and security standards as developed to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
An individual requesting access to their records should send a written inquiry to the System Manager identified in this notice. DOI forms and instructions for submitting a Privacy Act request may be obtained from the DOI Privacy Act Requests website at
An individual requesting amendment of their records should send a written request to the System Manager as identified in this notice. DOI instructions for submitting a request for amendment of records are available on the DOI Privacy Act Requests website at
An individual requesting notification of the existence of records about them should send a written inquiry to the System Manager as identified in this notice. DOI instructions for submitting a request for notification are available on the DOI Privacy Act Requests website at
None.
64 FR 69032 (December 9, 1999); modification published at 73 FR 20949 (April 17, 2008) and 86 FR 50156 (September 7, 2021).
On April 8, 2024, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in the lawsuit entitled
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Clean Water Act's stormwater management requirements at 16 home-building construction sites. The Consent Decree resolves the claims against both defendants, who must implement specified stormwater management practices, implement a supplemental environmental project that will cost them $400,000, and pay a civil penalty of $400,000.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 10, 2024.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to reduce workers' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that portable fire extinguishers are in a safe operating condition.
Paragraph (e)(3) of the Standard specifies that employers must subject each portable fire extinguisher to an annual maintenance inspection and record the date of the inspection. In addition, this provision requires employers to retain the inspection record for one year after the last entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less, and to make the record available to OSHA on request. This recordkeeping requirement assures workers and agency compliance officers that portable fire extinguishers located in the workplace will operate normally in case of fire; in addition, this requirement provides evidence to OSHA compliance officers during an inspection that the employer performed the required maintenance checks on the portable fire extinguishers.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record). The agency is requesting an adjustment increase in burden hours from 293,496 hours to 478,393 hours, a difference of 184,897 hours. This increase is due to the increase in the number of in-service portable fire extinguishers from 39,132,742 to 63,785,650.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
Flooding is the most common and costly natural hazard in the United States. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is requesting public comments on the beta version of the Federal Flood Standard Support website (available at
Interested persons and organizations are invited to submit comments on or before May 28, 2024.
Interested individuals and organizations should submit comments electronically via to
Information obtained from this Request for Comments may be used by the Government on a non-attribution
Responses containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of or electronic links to the referenced materials. Responses from minors, or responses containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language or content will not be considered.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Responses to this Request for Comments may be posted without change online. Please note that the United States Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in a response.
For additional information, please direct questions to Dr. Kristin Ludwig, OSTP Assistant Director for Resilience Science and Technology, at
Flooding is the most common and costly natural hazard in the United States. From 1980-2023, flood-related losses have cost our Nation an average of $4.3 billion per year,
Executive Order (E.O.) 13690,
Under E.O. 11988, floodplain areas to consider were the areas subject to flooding by the one-percent annual chance flood, also known as the base flood. These areas were typically identified by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in their Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
•
•
•
• The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.
Additional information, including an instructional video, on floodplains and the FFRMS is available at
A number of resources have been developed to help users learn about and implement the FFRMS. The 2023
While OSTP invites all comments responsive to this request for comments, of key interest are: (a) feedback on the functionality of the Federal Flood Standard Support Tool in providing a user-friendly visual representation and actionable information on FFRMS approaches for federally funded projects; (b) insights on potential training and/or technical assistance needs associated with use of the Federal Flood Standard Support Tool; and (c) suggestions for clarifying the communication of the flood mapping data development methodology. Please be specific in comments provided and/or recommendations for changes to the digital resources.
Response to this Request for Comments is voluntary. Comments on the beta version of the Federal Flood Standard Support website and Tool will be considered as modifications are made to the website and Tool. Please note, as this is the beta release, over the course of the coming months, additional data will be incorporated to provide more expansive coverage.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 18a-9, which is modeled on Exchange Act Rule 17-13, establishes a securities count program for security-based swap dealers not dually registered as a broker-dealer or regulated by a prudential regulator (“stand-alone SBSDs”). Specifically, Rule 18a-9 requires stand-alone SBSDs to examine and count the securities they physically hold, account for the securities that are subject to their control and direction but are not in their physical possession, verify the locations of securities under certain circumstances, and compare the results of the count and verification with their records.
Stand-alone SBSDs are required to perform a securities count each quarter, either as of a date certain or on a cyclical basis. Rule 18a-9 requires stand-alone SBSDs to note any discrepancies between the count and the firm's records, and to record in the firm's record any discrepancies that remain unresolved seven business days after the date of the examination, count, and verification.
The Commission estimates that the total hour burden under Rule 18a-6 is approximately 1,100 hours per year.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by June 10, 2024.
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.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
On October 5, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On January 11, 2024, the Division of Trading and Markets (“Division”), pursuant to delegated authority,
Accordingly,
It is further
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2(1).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2(1) to establish a number of incentives for Lead Market Makers (“LMMs”),
Today, the Exchange assesses the following fees and rebates in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols:
The Exchange now proposes to establish new incentives in note 2, which is currently reserved, that would be in addition to the Penny and Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebates currently provided to LMMs and MMs. Specifically, note 2 would provide:
Lead Market Makers and Market Makers that either (1) execute more than 0.45% Customer Total Consolidated Volume (“TCV”) per day which adds liquidity in a given month (excluding Lead Market Maker and Market Maker volume which adds liquidity in SPY), or (2) increase their combined Lead Market Maker and Market Maker volume which adds liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their March 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV (excluding Lead Market Maker and Market Maker volume which adds liquidity in SPY), will receive the following incentives: (i) an additional $0.05 per contract Maker Rebate in Penny Symbols excluding SPY, (ii) an additional $0.01 per contract Maker Rebate in SPY, and (iii) an additional $0.24 per contract Maker Rebate in Non-Penny Symbols. Lead Market Makers and Market Makers with no volume in the add liquidity segment for the month of March 2024 may qualify for the additional Maker Rebates by having any new volume (excluding SPY volume) considered as added volume. This note 2 incentive will be available through September 30, 2024.
Proposed note 2 would provide LMMs and MMs two separate paths to receive the additional Maker Rebates described above. The first path would be based on liquidity adding volume on BX as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which will be defined as the total national volume cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in equity and ETF options in that month.
The second path would be a growth incentive aimed at rewarding LMMs and MMs to grow the extent of their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange over time, relative to a benchmark month. LMMs and MMs who did not have any combined Lead Market Maker and Market Maker add liquidity volume for the month of March 2024 (and therefore lack March 2024 baseline volume against which to measure subsequent growth) would meet the proposed growth requirement through whatever volume of LMM and MM add liquidity activity (excluding in SPY) during the first month of use.
The Exchange notes that it will exclude LMM and MM liquidity adding volume in SPY from both paths because SPY is the most actively traded symbol on BX, and Exchange believes that LMMs and MMs will continue to be incentivized to bring SPY liquidity adding volume on BX despite the exclusion of SPY volume from the note 2 qualifications. Further, the Exchange is encouraging SPY liquidity adding volume separately through the proposed additional $0.01 per contract Maker Rebate in SPY described above.
The proposed note 2 incentives will be available through September 30, 2024. The Exchange believes that this would ensure that the note 2 incentives—notably the growth incentive using the benchmark month (
The Exchange also proposes to establish a growth incentive in new note 4 of Options 7, Section 2(1) that would have similar qualifications as the growth incentive proposed in new note 2 above in that Members would be measured relative to a benchmark month. Specifically, Members that increase their executed Customer volume which removes liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their March 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV will receive a Taker Fee discount of $0.05 per contract in Penny Symbols excluding SPY, QQQ, and IWM. Accordingly, qualifying Members would pay a Customer Taker Fee of $0.35 (instead of $0.40) per contract in Penny Symbols. The Exchange is proposing to exclude SPY, QQQ, and IWM from the note 4 incentive because Members are already paying lower Customer Taker Fees of $0.33 per contract for those symbols today.
The proposed note 4 incentive is aimed at rewarding Members to grow the extent of their Customer liquidity removing activity on the Exchange over time, relative to a benchmark month. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that Members with no Customer volume in the remove liquidity segment for the month of March 2024 may qualify for the Taker Fee discount by having any new volume considered as added volume. Similar to the note 2 incentive proposed above, Members who did not have the requisite volume for the month of March 2024 (and therefore lack March 2024 baseline volume against which to measure subsequent growth) would meet the proposed growth requirement through whatever volume in the required segment during the first month of use. The Exchange believes that the proposed growth incentive in note 4 will encourage increased Customer order flow to the Exchange, which contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even more
Similar to the proposed note 2 incentive above, the Exchange proposes to sunset the new note 4 incentive on September 30, 2024. The Exchange believes that this would ensure that the proposed growth incentive is timely and meets the intended purpose of encouraging increased order flow and Customer liquidity removing activity.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes a number of non-substantive, technical edits in Options 7. First, the Exchange proposes to title paragraph (a) in Options 7, Section 1 as “Definitions” to more clearly identify the applicable rules within this paragraph. Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 2(1) to correct a formatting error by adding parentheses around the note 1 and note 3 references appended to the Customer Taker Fee in Penny Symbols and Customer Maker Rebate in Non-Penny Symbols, respectively.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of seventeen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed note 2 incentives are reasonable for several reasons. As discussed above, note 2 would provide LMMs and MMs two separate paths to receive the proposed additional Maker Rebates of (i) $0.05 per contract in Penny Symbols excluding SPY,
As discussed above, the second path would be a growth incentive that would provide LMMs and MMs with the additional Maker Rebates outlined above if they increase their combined LMM and MM volume which adds liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their March 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV (excluding LMM and MM volume which adds liquidity in SPY). The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable because it will provide extra incentives to LMMs and MMs to engage in substantial amounts of liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, as well as to substantially grow the extent to which they do so relative to a recent benchmark month. The Exchange believes that if the proposed growth incentive is effective, any ensuing increase in liquidity adding activity on BX will improve the quality of the market overall, to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to consider any new add liquidity volume (excluding SPY volume) for LMMs and MMs with no such volume for the month of March 2024 in order for those market participants to receive the proposed additional Maker Rebates in note 2. The proposed growth incentive is designed to attract additional liquidity from new LMMs and MMs as well as existing LMMs and MMs who
The Exchange further believes that it is reasonable to exclude LMM and MM liquidity adding volume in SPY from both paths because SPY is the most actively traded symbol on BX, and Exchange believes that LMMs and MMs will continue to be incentivized to bring SPY liquidity adding volume on BX despite the exclusion of SPY volume from the note 2 qualifications. Further, the Exchange is encouraging SPY liquidity adding volume separately through the proposed additional $0.01 per contract Maker Rebate in SPY described above.
The Exchange believes that the proposed note 2 incentives are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons that follow. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide the note 2 incentives to only LMMs and MMs because these market participants have different requirements and additional obligations to the Exchange that other market participants do not (such as quoting requirements). As noted above, LMMs would ultimately receive higher Maker Rebates than MMs when combining the current base rebates with the proposed additional rebates.
The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to consider any new add liquidity volume (excluding SPY volume) for LMMs and MMs with no such volume in March 2024 in order for those market participants to receive the proposed additional Maker Rebates because this is designed to attract additional liquidity and order flow from new and existing LMMs and MMs to the Exchange, as discussed above. In turn, this additional liquidity should benefit all market participants through increased liquidity and order interaction. Furthermore, the proposed growth incentive will be temporary and sunset on September 30, 2024 to ensure that the incentive is timely and meets the intended purpose of encouraging increased order flow and liquidity adding activity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed growth incentive in new note 4 of Options 7, Section 2(1) is reasonable for the reasons that follow. As discussed above, Members that increase their executed Customer volume which removes liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their March 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV will receive a Taker Fee discount of $0.05 per contract in Penny Symbols excluding SPY, QQQ, and IWM. Accordingly, qualifying Members would pay a Customer Taker Fee of $0.35 (instead of $0.40) per contract in Penny Symbols excluding SPY, QQQ, and IWM. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to exclude SPY, QQQ, and IWM from the note 4 incentive because Members are already paying lower Customer Taker Fees of $0.33 per contract for those symbols today.
The Exchange believes that the proposed growth incentive is reasonable because it will provide extra incentives to Members to engage in substantial amounts of Customer liquidity removing activity on the Exchange, as well as to substantially grow the extent to which they do so relative to a recent benchmark month. The Exchange believes that if the proposed growth incentive is effective, any ensuing increase in liquidity removing activity on BX will increase trading opportunities for all market participants. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to consider any new Customer remove liquidity volume for Members with no such volume for the month of March 2024 in order for those Members to receive the proposed Taker Fee discount in note 4. The proposed growth incentive is designed to attract additional Customer order flow from new Members as well as existing Members who may not have a large footprint on BX today. To the extent this proposal attracts such order flow to BX, all market participants should benefit through more trading opportunities. As discussed above, the Exchange intends for the proposed growth incentive in note 4 to sunset on September 30, 2024, and will use this time to evaluate suitable parameters for such market participants in the targeted segment. The Exchange believes that this will ensure that the proposed incentive is timely and meets the intended purpose of encouraging increased order flow and Customer liquidity removing activity. As noted above, other options exchanges (including the Exchange's affiliate) have previously adopted similar growth incentives.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed note 4 incentive is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons that follow. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide the note 4 incentive to only Customer orders because the proposed changes are intended to increase Customer order follow, particularly Customer remove liquidity order flow, to BX. An increase in Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts other market participants that may interact with this order flow.
The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to consider any new Customer remove liquidity volume for Members with no such volume in March 2024 in order for those Members to receive the proposed Taker Fee discount because this is designed to attract additional liquidity and order flow from new and existing Members to the Exchange, as discussed above. In turn, this additional liquidity should benefit
The Exchange believes that the non-substantive, technical edits in Options 7 are consistent with the Act because they will promote clarity so that market participants can more easily locate the relevant rules in the Pricing Schedule, and they are also intended to correct formatting errors in the Pricing Schedule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any category of market participant at a competitive disadvantage. As it relates to the proposed note 2 incentives offered to LMMs and MMs, the Exchange believes that the additional Maker Rebates should encourage the provision of liquidity from both existing and new LMMs and MMs that enhances the quality of the Exchange's market and increases the number of trading opportunities on the Exchange for all market participants who will be able to compete for such opportunities. Similarly, for the proposed note 4 incentive offered to Customers, the Exchange likewise believes that the Taker Fee discount should encourage additional Customer order flow from both existing and new Members, which would enhance BX's market quality and increase trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
Section 11(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-11(a)) provides that it is unlawful for a registered open-end investment company (“fund”) or its underwriter to make an offer to the fund's shareholders or the shareholders of any other fund to exchange the fund's securities for securities of the same or another fund on any basis other than the relative net asset values (“NAVs”) of the respective securities to be exchanged, “unless the terms of the offer have first been submitted to and approved by the Commission or are in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may have prescribed in respect of such offers.” Section 11(a) was designed to prevent “switching,” the practice of inducing shareholders of one fund to exchange their shares for the shares of another fund for the purpose of exacting additional sales charges.
Rule 11a-3 (17 CFR 270.11a-3) under the Act of 1940 is an exemptive rule that permits open-end investment companies (“funds”), other than insurance company separate accounts, and funds' principal underwriters, to make certain exchange offers to fund shareholders and shareholders of other funds in the same group of investment companies. The rule requires a fund, among other things, (i) to disclose in its prospectus and advertising literature the amount of any administrative or redemption fee imposed on an exchange transaction, (ii) if the fund imposes an administrative fee on exchange transactions, other than a nominal one, to maintain and preserve records with respect to the actual costs incurred in connection with exchanges for at least six years, and (iii) give the fund's shareholders a sixty day notice of a termination of an exchange offer or any material amendment to the terms of an exchange offer (unless the only material effect of an amendment is to reduce or eliminate an administrative fee, sales load or redemption fee payable at the time of an exchange).
The rule's requirements are designed to protect investors against abuses associated with exchange offers, provide fund shareholders with information necessary to evaluate exchange offers and certain material changes in the terms of exchange offers, and enable the Commission staff to monitor funds' use of administrative fees charged in connection with exchange transactions.
The staff estimates that there are approximately 1,379 active open-end investment companies registered with the Commission as of December 2022 (using filings made through July 2023). The staff estimates that 25 percent of these funds (345 funds) impose a non-nominal administrative fee on exchange transactions. The staff estimates that the recordkeeping requirement of the rule requires approximately 1 hour annually of clerical time (at an estimated $73 per hour)
The staff estimates that 5 percent of these 1,379 funds (or 69 funds) terminate an exchange offer or make a material change to the terms of their exchange offer each year, requiring the fund to comply with the notice requirement of the rule. The staff estimates that complying with the notice requirement of the rule requires approximately 1 hour of attorney time (at an estimated $484 per hour) and 2 hours of clerical time (at an estimated $73 per hour) per fund, for a total of approximately 207 hours for all funds to comply with the notice requirement (at a total annual cost of $43,470).
The recordkeeping and notice requirements together impose an estimated total burden of 552 hours on all funds (at a total annual cost of $68,655).
Table 1 below summarizes the currently approved and updated burdens associated with rule 11a-3.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. 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 control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
On December 26, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 26, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend the Deposits Guide and the Operational Arrangements to reflect the upcoming migration of the Deposit/Withdrawal at Custodian (“DWAC”) functionality for securities in the DTC Fast Automated Securities Transfer (“FAST”) program (“FAST-eligible Securities”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would amend the Deposits Guide and the Operational Arrangements to reflect the upcoming migration of the Deposit/Withdrawal at Custodian (“DWAC”) functionality for securities in the DTC Fast Automated Securities Transfer (“FAST”) program (“FAST-eligible Securities”)
DTC has undertaken a multiyear and multiphase initiative to enhance and modernize its securities processing systems. DTC's current security processing system (“SPS”) applications utilize legacy mainframe, terminal-based, centralized computing technology, which Participants and FAST Agents typically access through PTS/PBS. The SPS applications are, and have been for decades, robust and reliable. However, because the SPS is comprised of various distinct mainframe legacy applications, enhancements and maintenance of such are becoming more difficult and more costly. Accordingly, as part of its overall modernization efforts, DTC determined to create a more effective and efficient securities processing model with greater flexibility for new products, maintenance and future enhancements—the SPA system.
With this proposed rule change, DTC would migrate the DWAC functionality currently used by Participants and FAST Agents through PTS/PBS to the SPA system, without any cost or investment needed by Participants or FAST Agents. SPA is built on distributed server-based computing and is designed to provide a system that is streamlined, resilient and in line with the needs and usability standards of Participants and FAST Agents.
The FAST program reduces and streamlines certificate movements between DTC and transfer agents. For FAST-eligible Securities, the FAST Agent, as custodian for DTC, hold the securities registered in the name of DTC's nominee, Cede & Co., in the form of global balance certificates (“FAST Balance Certificate”). Each FAST Balance Certificate represents the amount (
A FAST Agent may custody the FAST Balance Certificates in the form of a certificate that either (i) evidences a fixed number of shares, units, or obligations and is cancelled and reissued daily, or (ii) reflects that the amount of the DTC FAST Balance shown on the books of the issuer is represented by such certificate, and the certificate is not cancelled as that number of share, units, or obligations fluctuates. FAST Agents are required to confirm daily to DTC the numbers of share, units or obligations, as the case
A Participant can deposit a physical certificate for a FAST-eligible Security with DTC directly, and DTC will credit the Participant's account by the amount of the deposit, and send the certificate received from the Participant to the FAST Agent. The FAST Agent will cancel the certificate and increase the DTC FAST Balance for the security by the amount being deposited.
The deposit functionality of DWAC permits a Participant to make a deposit of a FAST-eligible Security directly with the FAST Agent for the security, which will then cancel the certificate (if a physical deposit) and increase the DTC FAST Balance for the security by the amount being deposited. The FAST Agent will confirm the deposit to DTC, which will credit the Participant's account with the amount of the deposit. Similarly, a Participant can make a DWAC withdrawal, in which the FAST Agent will reduce the DTC FAST Balance for the amount of the security being withdrawn and will re-register the amount of the security being withdrawn into the name of the Participant or to another party identified by the Participant.
FAST Agents currently use the Custodian Deposit/Withdrawal at Custodian (“CDWC”) function on PTS (or the TA Direct Deposit/Withdrawal function on PBS), to view and approve the DWAC transactions of Participants. In addition, FAST Agents can also use the optional DWAC Centralized Billing through PTS/PBS to automate the billing and collection of pass-through DWAC fees charged to Participants by the FAST Agent. Participants currently use the Participant Deposit/Withdrawal at Custodian (“PDWC”) function on PTS (or the Part Direct Deposit/Withdrawal functions on PBS) to view and to input deposit and withdrawal instructions for their DWAC transactions.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the DWAC functionality currently used by Participants and FAST Agents through PTS/PBS will migrate to the SPA system. As of March 28, 2024, FAST Agents and Participants will be required to conduct these activities through the SPA system, which is accessible through the DTCC Portal at
To effectuate the proposed rule change, DTC would make the following changes to the Deposits Guide and the Operational Arrangements:
(a) The Deposits Guide
(i) In the “Depositing Securities at DTC” section:
(1) Add a reference to the Securities Processing Application (SPA) system and, in the list of methods for deposit, replace “The Fast Automated Securities Transfer system (FAST) (via the PTS function PDWC and PBS function Participant Direct Deposit Withdrawal)” with “The SPA System (via Application Programming Interface (API) or via the DTCC Portal) to inquire, create and review transactions;” and
(2) Clarify that a Participant receives same-day credit for its DWAC deposit, as long as the DWAC deposit is “entered by the Participant and created via SPA and approved by the custodian/agent” prior to noon Eastern Time.
(ii) In the “Deposit/Withdrawal at Custodian (DWAC)” section:
(1) In the “About the Product” subsection, add the following at the end of the paragraph, “DWAC is available on the Securities Processing Application (SPA) system via the DTCC Portal or Application Programming Interface (API).”
(2) In the “How the Product Works” subsection:
(a) Replace references to DWACs being performed through PTS/PBS with references to the SPA system, and add language to reflect that when a Participant requests a DWAC, a unique Transaction ID is assigned (which allows for tracking by the Participant and the custodian/agent);
(b) Replace references to the confirmation ticket and confirmation status types generated by PTS/PBS with a list of the SPA Transaction Status types available in the SPA DWAC transaction life cycle; and
(c) Add a note that the information is available via API and that information on APIs is available on the DTCC API Marketplace via
(3) Replace the entirety of the “Associated PTS/PBS File Functions” subsection with the new “Associated SPA Portal Navigation/File Functions/Application Programming Interface (APIs)” subsection. The new subsection would provide a table of the applicable SPA Function access path and a description of the function, as well as a row reflecting API and the continuing availability of the CCF Batch Files.
(b) The Operational Arrangements
(i) In Section II.B.2.c (DWAC), (i) add a reference to the SPA system for processing DWAC transactions; (ii) replace a reference to DWAC with “SPA system;” and (iii) replace a reference to PTS/PBS with “SPA system.”
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) requires,
The proposed rule changes are also designed to be consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(21) which requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves.
DTC believes that the proposed rule change to amend the Deposits Guide and the Operational Arrangements to reflect the upcoming migration of the DWAC functionality for Participants and FAST Agents from the legacy PTS/PBS system to the new SPA system would not have any impact on competition.
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they would be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
DTC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Ink and Ivory: Drawings and Photographs Selected with James Ivory” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Department of State (DOS).
Notice of New Matching Program.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) will provide the Department of State, Office of Retirement (DOS) Social Security numbers (SSN) verifications and Social Security disability benefit information concerning disability annuitants who are receiving Foreign Service Disability Annuity. DOS will use the benefit information to determine the offset amount for Foreign Service Disability Annuity payments.
Please submit comments on or before June 18, 2024. The matching program will begin on June 18, 2024, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public that require modification and republication of the notice. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the beginning date and may be extended an additional 12 months if the respective Data Integrity Boards determine that the matching program will be conducted without change; and DOS and SSA have conducted the matching program in compliance with the original agreement.
You may submit comments via mail to: Edward Capers, Jr., Director, Department of State, Office of Retirement, Room SA-1 H620, 2401 E ST NW, Washington, DC 20522, telephone (202) 261-8960, or via email at
Susan Farrar, Deputy Director, Department of State, Office of Retirement, at (202) 261-8961.
DOS is required to reduce the Foreign Service Disability annuities of individuals receiving Social Security disability benefits. DOS must rely on the annuitant to report the correct amount of Social Security benefits. However, DOS has found that many beneficiaries fail to report accurate information. Information from SSA is the most effective means available for verifying receipt and amount of Social Security disability benefits. The most cost-effective and efficient way to obtain this information is via the computer transfer matching process.
U.S. Department of State.
Notice of meetings and request for comments; invitation to public session.
The U.S. Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) are providing notice that the United States
The joint public session of the meeting on implementation of Chapter 18 (Environment) of the United States-Singapore FTA and the biennial review under the MOI will be held by teleconference on April 19, 2024, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. EDT. Instructions on submitting requests to participate in the virtual public session or on submitting questions or comments are under the heading
Requests to participate in the virtual public session and written comments or questions should use “United States-Singapore FTA Environment Chapter Implementation/MOI Review Meetings” as the subject line and be submitted to both: (1) Merideth Manella, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Environmental Quality, by email to
When preparing comments, submitters are encouraged to refer to Chapter 18 of the FTA and/or the MOI, as relevant (available at
If you have access to the internet, you can view and comment on this notice by going to:
Merideth Manella, (202) 286-5271,
The U.S. Department of State and USTR invite interested organizations and members of the public to submit comments or suggestions regarding any issues that should be discussed at the meetings and to participate in a virtual public session that will be held on April 19, 2024 at 12 p.m. EDT via teleconference. Instructions on how to submit comments or to participate in the virtual public session are under the heading
Article 18.4 of the FTA provides for institutional arrangements to discuss matters related to the operation of Chapter 18 (Environment). Article 18.5 further provides for opportunities for public participation in the discussion of matters related to the operation of Chapter 18 (Environment).
Section III of the MOI establishes that the United States and Singapore plan to meet at least biennially to review the status of cooperation under the MOI and that the two governments intend to devise and update a Plan of Action setting out cooperative projects to be pursued.
Visit the Department of State website at
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury” or the “Department”), Treasury proposes to modify a current Treasury system of records titled, “Department of the Treasury, Treasury .001—Treasury Payroll and Personnel System” System of Records. The records and information collected and maintained in this system includes, but are not limited to: Maintaining current and historical payroll records that are used to compute and audit pay entitlement; to record history of pay transactions; to record deductions, leave accrued and taken, bonds due and issued, taxes paid; maintaining and distributing Leave and Earnings statements; commence and terminate allotments; answer inquiries and process claims; and maintaining current and historical personnel records and preparing individual administrative transactions relating to education and training; classification; assignment; career development; evaluation; promotion, compensation, separation and retirement; making decisions on the rights, benefits, entitlements and the utilization of individuals; providing a data source for the production of reports, statistical surveys, rosters, documentation, and studies required for the orderly personnel administration within Treasury; maintaining employment history; and perform personnel and payroll functions for Federal agencies for which Treasury is a cross-services provider and to conduct activities necessary to carry-out the official HR line of business for all Federal departments and agencies that are serviced by the National Finance Center (NFC); producing of reports, statistical surveys, rosters, documentation, and studies required for the orderly personnel administration within Treasury, and maintaining information about Treasury personnel and their dependents for needs and status assessments to determine if they are entitled to a benefit related to a natural or man-made disaster, a public health emergency, or similar crisis.
Submit comments on or before May 13, 2024. The modification of the system of records notice will be applicable on May 13, 2024.
Written comments on this notice may be submitted electronically through the Federal government eRulemaking portal at
In general, Treasury will post all comments to
For general questions, please contact: Colleen Heller-Stein, 202-927-4800, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources/Chief Human Capital Officer, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220. For privacy issues, please contact: The Department of the Treasury, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties via email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury” or the “Department”), Treasury proposes to modify a current Treasury system of records titled, “Department of the Treasury, Treasury .001—Treasury Payroll and Personnel System” System of Records.
The proposed modification to the system of records makes the following substantive changes:
Treasury is modifying and publishing the modified system of records notice to update the categories of the records in the system and to add (1) update the system location and system managers addresses, (2) one authority to collect, and (3) one new routine use 27. This new routine use authorize disclosure to the Department of Justice pursuant to Executive Order 14074,
Treasury has provided a report of this system of records to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and OMB Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” dated December 23, 2016.
Department of the Treasury.001—Treasury Payroll and Personnel System.
Unclassified.
The Shared Development Center of the Treasury Personnel/Payroll System is located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1300, Washington, DC 20220. The Treasury Personnel System processing site is located at the Internal Revenue Service Detroit Computing Center, 985 Michigan Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226. The Treasury Payroll processing site is located at the United States Department of Agriculture National Finance Center, 13800 Old Gentilly Road, New Orleans, LA 70129.
The locations at which the system is maintained by all Treasury bureaus and offices and their associated field offices are:
(1) Departmental Offices (DO):
a. 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20220.
b. The Office of Inspector General (OIG): 875 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
c. Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR): 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
d. Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP): 1801 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20220.
e. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA): 901 D Street SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024-2169.
(2) Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB): 1310 G St. NW, Washington, DC 20220.
(3) Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC): 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
(4) Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP): 14th & C Streets SW, Washington, DC 20228.
(5) Fiscal Service (FS): 401 14th Street SW, Washington, DC 20227.
(6) Internal Revenue Service (IRS): 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
(7) United States Mint (MINT): Avery Street Building, 320 Avery Street, Parkersburg, WV, and 801 9th St. NW, Washington, DC 20220.
(8) Bureau of Public Debt (BPD): 999-E Street NW, Washington, DC 20239.
(9) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Vienna, VA 22183-0039.
Department of the Treasury: Official prescribing policies and practices: Chief Human Capital Officer/Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
The systems managers for the Treasury bureaus and offices are:
(1) a. DO: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources/Chief Human Capital Officer, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
b. OIG: Personnel Officer, 875 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
c. SIGPR: Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
d. SIGTARP: Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 1801 L. Street NW, Washington, DC 20220.
e. TIGTA: Director, Human Resources, 901 D Street SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024-2169.
(2) TTB: Chief, Personnel Division, 1310 G St. NW, Washington, DC 20220.
(3) OCC: Director, Human Resources, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
(4) BEP: Chief, Office of Human Resources, 14th & C Streets SW, Room 202-13A, E&P Annex, Washington, DC 20228.
(5) FS: Director, Personnel Management Division, 3700 East-West Hwy., Room 115-F, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
(6) IRS: Associate Director, Transactional Processing Operations, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, CP6, A:PS:TP, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20224.
(7) MINT: Associate Director for Workforce Solutions, 801 9th Street NW, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20220.
(8) FinCEN: Chief of Personnel and Training, Vienna, VA 22183-0039.
A list of the Federal agencies for which Treasury is a cross-services provider and their respective system managers may be obtained by contacting the Chief Human Capital Officer/Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources, at the address shown above.
The purposes of the system includes, but are not limited to: (1) Maintaining current and historical payroll records that are used to compute and audit pay entitlement; to record history of pay transactions; to record deductions, leave accrued and taken, bonds due and issued, taxes paid; maintaining and
Consistent with Treasury's information-sharing mission, information stored in Department of the Treasury, Treasury .001—Treasury Payroll and Personnel System may be shared with other Treasury Bureaus, as well as appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. This sharing will only occur after Treasury determines that the receiving Bureau or agency has a need to know the information to carry out national security, law enforcement, intelligence, or other functions consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
(1) Employees, former employees, and applicants for employment, in all Treasury Department bureaus and offices. (2) Employees, former employees, and applicants for employment of Federal agencies for which the Treasury Department is a cross-services provider. (3) Dependents and family members of employees and former employees.
Information contained in this system includes such data as:
(1) Employee identification and status data such as name, records that establish an individual's identity, social security number, date of birth, sex, race and national origin designator, awards received, suggestions, work schedule, type of appointment, education, training courses attended, veterans preference, and military service;
(2) employment data such as service computation for leave, date probationary period began, date of performance rating, performance contract, and date of within-grade increases;
(3) position and pay data such as position identification number, pay plan, step, salary and pay basis, occupational series, organization location, and accounting classification codes;
(4) payroll data such as earnings (overtime and night differential), deductions (Federal, state, and local taxes, bonds and allotments), and time and attendance data. Time and attendance data includes, but is not limited to, any information necessary to administer any of Treasury's leave programs, such as all forms of leave requests or applications (including in connection with any voluntary leave transfer program and including leave donated or used), balances, and credits, including Leave Without Pay (LWOP); any supporting documentation provided by the leave requestor or on behalf of the leave requester, which may include medical records; and information related to all other absence types, including Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and Suspension).
(5) employee retirement and Thrift Savings Plan data;
(6) employment history, and
(7) tables of data for editing, reporting, and processing personnel and pay actions. These include nature of action codes, civil service authority codes, standard remarks, signature block table, position title table, financial organization table, and salary tables.
(8) employees and former employees' dependents and family members' data, including but not limited to full name, date of birth, age, and healthcare provider information.
The information contained in these records is provided by or verified by the subject of the record, supervisors, and non-Federal sources such as private employers.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records and/or information or portions thereof maintained as part of this system may be disclosed outside Treasury as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”, for the purpose of representing or providing legal advice to the Department in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Department is authorized to appear, when such proceeding involves:
(a) The Department of any bureau or office thereof;
(b) Any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, when the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its bureaus and offices; and the use of such records by the DOJ is deemed by the DOJ or the Department to be relevant and necessary to the litigation provided that the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which records were collected.
(2) To an appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, background investigation, license, contract, grant, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant and necessary to a Treasury decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit and when disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the request;
(3) To a Congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(4) To the National Archives and Records Administration Archivist (or the Archivist's designee) pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906;
(5) To appropriate agencies, entities, and person when (1) the Department of
(6) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of the Treasury determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach;
(7) Furnish data to the Department of Agriculture, National Finance Center (which provides payroll and personnel processing services for Treasury under a cross-servicing agreement) affecting the conversion of Treasury employee payroll and personnel processing services; the issuance of paychecks to employees and distribution of wages; and the distribution of allotments and deductions to financial and other institutions, some through electronic funds transfer;
(8) Furnish the Internal Revenue Service and other jurisdictions which are authorized to tax employees' compensation with wage and tax information in accordance with a withholding agreement with the Department of the Treasury pursuant to
(9) Provide records to the Office of Personnel Management, Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and General Accounting Office for the purpose of properly administering Federal personnel systems or other agencies' systems in accordance with applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations;
(10) Furnish another Federal agency with information necessary or relevant to effect interagency salary or administrative offset, except that addresses obtained from the Internal Revenue Service shall not be disclosed to other agencies; to furnish a consumer reporting agency information to obtain commercial credit reports; and to furnish a debt collection agency information for debt collection services. Current mailing addresses acquired from the Internal Revenue Service are routinely released to consumer reporting agencies to obtain credit reports and are arguably relevant to debt collection agencies for collection services;
(11) Disclose information to a Federal, state, local, or foreign agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, that has requested information relevant to or necessary to the requesting agency's hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit;
(12) Disclose information to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation or settlement negotiations in response to a subpoena where arguably relevant to a proceeding, or in connection with criminal law proceedings;
(13) Disclose information to foreign governments in accordance with formal or informal international agreements;
(14) Provide information to a congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(15) Provide information to the news media in accordance with guidelines contained in
(16) Provide information to third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation;
(17) Provide information to unions recognized as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
(18) Provide wage and separation information to another agency, such as the Department of Labor or Social Security Administration, as required by law for payroll purposes;
(19) Provide information to a Federal, state, or local agency so that the agency may adjudicate an individual's eligibility for a benefit, such as a state employment compensation board, housing administration agency, and Social Security Administration;
(20) Disclose pertinent information to appropriate Federal, state, local or foreign agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violation of, or for implementing, a statute, regulation, order, or license, where the disclosing agency becomes aware of a potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation;
(21) Disclose information about particular Treasury employees to requesting agencies or non-Federal entities under approved computer matching efforts, limited only to those data elements considered relevant to making a determination of eligibility under particular benefit programs administered by those agencies or entities or by the Department of the Treasury or any constituent unit of the Department, to improve program integrity, and to collect debts and other money owed under those programs (
(22) Disclose to the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, the names, social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, dates of hire, quarterly earnings, employer identifying information, and State of hire of employees, for the purposes of locating individuals to establish paternity, establishing and modifying orders of child support, identifying sources of income, and for other child support enforcement activities as required by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Law,
(23) Disclose to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, other federal agencies, states and local governments, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Department of the Treasury as required for the production of reports, descriptive statistical surveys, rosters, documentation, and studies required for the orderly administration of personnel and payroll-related issues within Treasury;
(24) Disclose information to other Federal agencies with whom the Department has entered into a cross servicing agreement that provides for the delivery of automated human resources operations. These operations may include maintaining current and historical payroll and personnel records, and providing reports, statistical surveys, rosters, documentation, and studies as required by the other federal agency to support its personnel administration activities; and
(26) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) the Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(27) To disclose, to the extent permitted by law, official records documenting former or current Treasury law enforcement officers' commendations, awards, and misconduct to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as required pursuant to Executive Order 14074, Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety, to provide a central source for federal, state, local, and tribal agencies to search when making suitability determinations during the recruitment, investigation, hiring, promotion, and retention of law enforcement personnel.
Records in this system are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. Microfiche, and hard copy are stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM. Disbursement records are stored at the Federal Records Center.
Records may be retrieved alphabetically by name of subject or complainant, by case number, by special agent name, by employee identifying number, by victim, and by witness case number.
The current payroll and personnel system and the personnel and payroll system's master files are kept as Start Printed Page 78269 electronic media. Information rendered to hard copy in the form of reports and payroll information documentation is also retained in an electronic media format. Employee records are retained in automated form for as long as the employee is active on the system (separated employee records are maintained in an “inactive” status). Files are purged in accordance with Treasury Directive 80-05, “Records and Information Management Program.”
Entrances to data centers and support organization offices are restricted to those employees whose work requires them to be there for the system to operate. Identification (ID) cards are verified to ensure that only authorized personnel are present. Disclosure of information through remote terminals is restricted through the use of passwords and sign-on protocols, which are periodically changed. Reports produced from the remote printers are in the custody of personnel and financial management officers and are subject to the same privacy controls as other documents of similar sensitivity.
See “Notification Procedures” below.
See “Notification Procedures” below.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), this system of records may not be accessed for purposes of determining if the system contains a record pertaining to a particular individual, or for contesting the contents of a record.
None.
Notice of this system of records was last published in full in the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is publishing a final rule for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP). This final rule includes requirements for Agency Safety Plans (ASP), Safety Committees, cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives in the development of ASPs, safety risk reduction programs, safety performance targets, de-escalation training for certain transit workers, and addressing infectious diseases through the Safety Management System (SMS) process. This final rule also finalizes revisions to the regulation to coordinate and align with other FTA programs and safety rulemakings.
The effective date of this rule is May 13, 2024.
FTA's Office of Transit Safety and Oversight (TSO) will host a webinar to discuss the requirements of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) final rule. Visit
For program matters, contact Stewart Mader, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-9677 or
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
This final rule amends the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) regulation at 49 CFR part 673 with new requirements that implement statutory changes in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58; November 15, 2021). The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law amends FTA's safety program at 49 U.S.C. 5329 and adds to the PTASP requirements for public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (Chapter 53). This final rule also builds on the existing PTASP final rule published in 2018 to enhance the Safety Management System (SMS) process and finalizes revisions to the regulation to coordinate and align with other FTA programs and safety rulemakings.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law amended the PTASP requirements by adding a risk reduction program that addresses, at a minimum, transit worker safety and reduction of pedestrian/bus collisions. Transit worker safety is a top priority for FTA. Since the previous PTASP Final Rule became effective in 2019,
In 2020, FTA launched the Bus Operator Compartment Redesign Program
In 2022, shortly after enactment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, FTA issued a Dear Colleague Letter
To implement Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requirements related to assaults on transit workers and vehicular and pedestrian accidents involving buses, FTA published three notices in the
Congress directed FTA to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program, one element of which is the requirement for PTASP, in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012) (MAP-21), which was reauthorized by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94; December 4, 2015). To implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA issued a final rule on July 19, 2018, that added part 673, “Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans,” to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (83 FR 34418).
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law continues the Public Transportation Safety Program and adds to the PTASP requirements for public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under chapter 53.
This rule finalizes FTA's implementation of several revisions to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) enacted through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including:
• Requirements for each recipient that serves an urbanized area with a population of fewer than 200,000 (small urbanized area) to:
○ Develop its ASP in cooperation with frontline employee representatives (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B)); and
○ Address in its ASP strategies to minimize exposure to infectious diseases, consistent with guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a State health authority (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D)).
• Requirements for each recipient of Urbanized Area Formula Program funds under section 5307 that serves an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more (large urbanized area) to:
○ Establish a Safety Committee that is convened by a joint labor-management process and consists of an equal number of (1) frontline employee representatives, selected by a labor organization representing the plurality of the frontline workforce employed by the recipient or, if applicable, a contractor to the recipient, to the extent frontline employees are represented by labor organizations; and (2) management representatives. (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)). This Safety Committee has responsibility, at a minimum, for:
Approving the transit agency's ASP and any updates to the ASP before approval by the agency's Board of Directors or equivalent entity (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A));
Setting safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program using a three-year rolling average of the data submitted by the transit agency to the NTD (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(A));
Identifying and recommending risk-based mitigations or strategies necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences identified through the agency's safety risk assessment (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(I));
Identifying mitigations or strategies that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)); and
Identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous improvement (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(III)).
○ Establish a safety risk reduction program for transit operations to improve safety by reducing the number and rates of accidents, injuries, and assaults on transit workers based on data submitted to the NTD, including:
A reduction of vehicular and pedestrian accidents involving buses that includes measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus operators that contribute to accidents, including retrofits to buses in revenue service and specifications for future procurements that reduce visibility impairments; and
The mitigation of assaults on transit workers, including the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on buses, including barriers to restrict the unwanted entry of individuals and objects into bus operator workstations when a risk analysis performed by the Safety Committee determines that such barriers or other measures would reduce assaults on and injuries to transit workers (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I)).
○ Allocate not less than 0.75 percent of its section 5307 funds to safety-related projects eligible under section 5307 (safety set-aside). In the event the transit agency fails to meet a safety risk reduction program safety performance target:
Allocate the transit agency's safety set-aside in the following fiscal year to projects that are reasonably likely to assist the agency in meeting the target, including modifications to rolling stock and de-escalation training (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)).
○ Ensure the agency's comprehensive staff training program includes maintenance personnel and de-escalation training (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(H)(ii)).
○ Address in its ASP strategies to minimize exposure to infectious diseases, consistent with guidelines of the CDC or a State health authority (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D)).
Many of FTA's proposals from the NPRM are finalized without change. In response to comments, FTA made minor, non-substantive changes to § 673.5 related to the terms “injury,” “performance target,” and “safety performance target.”
In addition, the final rule includes amended requirements related to the role of the Safety Committee, Safety Committee procedures, the role of the Accountable Executive, and the safety risk reduction program.
In response to comments, FTA has made minor changes to the Safety Committee requirements in § 673.19. These changes provide additional clarity and specificity regarding Safety Committee procedures. FTA has revised § 673.19(c)(2) to provide that Safety Committee procedures must address how meeting notices will be developed and shared. FTA added a requirement at § 673.19(c)(4) that Safety Committee procedures include the compensation policy established by the transit agency for participation in Safety Committee meetings. In this provision, FTA is not requiring transit agencies to compensate members of the Safety Committee; rather, it is requiring the transit agency to adopt a policy regarding Safety Committee compensation and that the Safety Committee procedures include the policy the transit agency has adopted.
In response to comments, FTA also has revised §§ 673.19(c)(6) and (c)(8) to clarify that the Safety Committee procedures must document the Safety Committee's decision-making processes and to clarify that FTA is not requiring Safety Committees to make decisions through any specific voting mechanisms. Regarding Safety Committee disputes, FTA has revised § 673.19(c)(8) to clarify that the ASP must include procedures for how the Safety Committee will manage disputes to ensure that it carries out its operations, and may use the dispute resolution or arbitration process from the transit agency's Collective Bargaining Agreement, or some other process that the Safety Committee develops and agrees upon. The Accountable Executive, however, may not have a tiebreaking role in resolving Safety Committee disputes, because that would be inconsistent with the statutory requirements relating to the roles of Safety Committees. Additionally, FTA strengthened the focus of the provisions on cooperation with frontline transit workers by grouping requirements for Safety Committees and Cooperation with Frontline Transit Worker Representatives into a single Subpart C, titled “Safety Committees and Cooperation with Frontline Transit Worker Representatives.”
In response to comments from across the spectrum of stakeholders expressing confusion about the safety risk reduction program and seeking clarity on the relationship between the safety risk reduction program and SMS, FTA has eliminated the proposed § 673.20 as a standalone section, and has moved the safety risk reduction program requirements originally proposed under § 673.20 to other sections of the rule. This reorganization better reflects how the required safety risk reduction program activities are carried out using existing components of SMS.
Requirements that pertain to establishing the safety risk reduction program, general safety risk reduction program elements, and setting safety performance targets are now included in § 673.11, which identifies items that transit agencies must include in their ASPs. Requirements for carrying out the safety risk reduction program using SMS processes are in § 673.25, which now addresses safety risk reduction program requirements associated with Safety Risk Management, and § 673.27, which now includes safety risk reduction program requirements associated with Safety Assurance. By moving these requirements into the relevant SMS-related components of the regulation, FTA provides clear requirements for transit agencies to leverage existing SMS processes to support the safety risk reduction program. FTA confirms that the safety risk reduction program operates within an SMS and not outside of it or in conflict with it. Also in response to comments, FTA has clarified the requirements for large urbanized area providers and their Safety Committees to consider specific safety risk mitigations, including when the agency misses a safety performance target set by the Safety Committee.
Further, in response to comments and pursuant to statute, the final rule requires transit agencies to include or incorporate by reference into the ASP any safety risk mitigations relating to the safety risk reduction program that are identified and recommended by a large urbanized area provider's Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment. These requirements are described in §§ 673.11(a)(7)(iv) and 673.25(d)(5). The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) that the ASP must include the safety risk reduction program, and that the safety risk reduction program must include mitigations, including (1) measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus operators that contribute to accidents, including retrofits to vehicles in revenue service and specifications for future procurements that reduce visibility impairments; and (2) the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on buses. Accordingly, the statute requires the ASP to include these mitigations. The Safety Committee is tasked with identifying and recommending safety risk mitigations necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences identified through the agency's safety risk assessment. Therefore, as noted above, FTA is including the requirement that the ASP include safety risk mitigations related to the safety risk reduction program that are identified and recommended by the Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment.
In response to comments, § 673.23(d)(1) clarifies the role of the Accountable Executive regarding implementation of mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee. The Accountable Executive must implement safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program that are included in the ASP under § 673.11(a)(7)(iv). Given that the Accountable Executive has ultimate responsibility for carrying out the agency's ASP pursuant to § 673.5, the Accountable Executive is responsible for carrying out any mitigations included in the ASP.
In response to comments, § 673.23(d)(1) provides that the Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigations (
Most provisions in the final rule implement self-enacting statutory amendments made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 49 U.S.C. 5329, although some provisions are discretionary. The discretionary provisions include extending the de-escalation training requirement to all transit agencies subject to part 673, as well as requiring small public transportation providers to establish continuous improvement processes.
The requirements for de-escalation training and continuous improvement processes are predicted to reduce the risk of fatalities and injuries for transit workers, passengers, drivers, and pedestrians if transit agencies adopt safety risk mitigations that they would not have adopted otherwise. While FTA expects that agencies will be more likely to adopt safety risk mitigations to reduce the risk of transit worker assault and bus collisions, it does not have information to quantify or monetize potential benefits.
Agencies will incur costs to meet the requirements for de-escalation training and continuous improvement processes. FTA will also incur costs to notify agencies, update technical assistance resources, and conduct training, although the expected costs are minimal.
Table 1 summarizes the economic effects of the discretionary provisions in the final rule over the first ten years from 2024 to 2033 in 2021 dollars, assuming an effective date of 2024. On an annualized basis (discounted to 2023), the rule has estimated costs of $642,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $635,000 at 7 percent. To quantify benefits and assess net benefits, FTA would need information on the specific safety interventions transit agencies would adopt to address the requirements.
FTA issued an NPRM for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans on April 26, 2023 (88 FR 25336).
FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration when developing the final rule. Below, the NPRM comments and responses are subdivided by their corresponding sections of the proposed rule and subject matter.
One commenter requested additional clarification on applicability for operators who cease to meet the applicability criteria in § 673.1 but already have an ASP in place due to prior applicability.
One commenter recommended that applicability, particularly the requirement to create Safety Committees, should include operators that do not receive section 5307 funding, but that receive other funds or subsidy credit from a section 5307 recipient.
FTA disagrees with the need to further clarify applicability for operators whose funding sources change. For non-rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, the final regulation applies only to operators that are recipients or subrecipients of Urbanized Area Formula Funding (section 5307) funds.
Similarly, FTA disagrees with the commenter who suggested that operators of public transportation systems who do not receive section 5307 funds but receive other types of funds or subsidies from a section 5307 recipient should automatically be required to meet the requirements of the regulation. FTA continues to apply the
The National Safety Plan establishes safety performance measures for all modes of transportation. This directly reflects statutory language in 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(A), which requires FTA to set safety performance criteria in the National Safety Plan by mode. FTA notes that nothing in this final rule or in the National Safety Plan prevents a transit agency from establishing additional safety performance targets with greater specificity than required in the National Safety Plan (
Two commenters expressed support for FTA's proposed definitions, with one specifically noting support for the revised definitions of “small public transportation provider” and “assault on a transit worker.”
One commenter stated that changing or deleting definitions would have a significant impact on training materials and expressed concern with the cost of updating these materials.
One commenter expressed concern that the provided definitions lack the specificity required to address safety concerns in ASPs that are manageable and effective. They also stated that any new definitions should be congruent with State and local statutes.
FTA appreciates the support received regarding the definitions of “small public transportation provider” and “assault on a transit worker.”
FTA acknowledges that, as with any regulatory update, the definitional changes adopted in this final rule may necessitate an update of training materials to address these changes. FTA will aim to provide guidance and other technical assistance regarding the changes adopted in this rule to assist agencies with understanding and adapting to them.
FTA appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the specificity of definitions in this rule and how FTA's definitions may differ from State or local statutes. The definitions introduced here are designed to be sufficiently specific to facilitate compliance without being so restrictive that they interfere with an agency's ability to appropriately scale their SMS to the size and complexity of their transit system. Further, it is not feasible for FTA to accommodate all potential State and local statutory definitions in this rulemaking. FTA therefore declines to make any changes in response to this comment.
One of the commenters requested additional guidance on the definition's use of the terms “knowingly,” “with intent,” and “interferes with” due to concerns about the difficulty of applying these factors in some situations. Similarly, four commenters requested that FTA provide guidance on the types of events that constitute an assault on a transit worker. Two of these commenters recommended that FTA provide examples either in the final rule or in NTD guidance materials. One of these commenters requested that FTA implement a “grace period” for NTD assault reporting requirements and PTASP safety risk reduction program performance measures until FTA develops clear guidance on the application of the term. This commenter expressed that the definition is ambiguous and leads to undue administrative burden.
Five commenters stated that the definition of assault used in this rule is not congruent with state criminal statutes, noting that this will create confusion and uncertainty about its application. One of these commenters further questioned why this definition was created when prosecution for assaults on transit workers is generally conducted at a local, not a Federal, level and suggested that these assaults should be tracked by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) instead. Another commenter suggested that FTA consider using a different word than “assault” due to differences with state statutory definitions.
One commenter stated that the definition of assault varies, even within one transit agency, which leads to administrative burden and confusion for an agency's safety, dispatch, and law enforcement personnel. The same commenter stated the incongruity between the rule and the state criminal statutory definition may lead law enforcement to mistakenly direct dispatchers not to report an assault as defined by FTA.
One commenter asked whether assaults on a transit worker should be considered safety or security events.
FTA acknowledges that the collection of non-physical assault events may increase the assault on transit worker data that transit agencies collect. FTA notes that the NTD has initiated the collection of non-physical assaults on transit workers data and that this rule utilizes the same definition of assault on a transit worker used by the NTD. This definitional alignment provides important consistency across the PTASP and NTD programs.
FTA appreciates the comments requesting additional guidance from FTA about the definition of “assault on a transit worker” and how it should be applied. The NTD program serves as FTA's system for collection of assaults on transit worker reporting requirements. FTA communicates reporting requirements to the NTD reporting community through (1) annual messaging around updates to reporting requirements, (2) regular communications with reporters (both through the system's blast messaging and between the reporter and their assigned validation analyst), (3) an updated FAQ section
FTA disagrees that a “grace period” for safety risk reduction program performance measures and reporting assaults on transit workers to the NTD is necessary and notes that the NTD has already begun collecting data on assaults on transit workers from the transit industry.
Regarding concerns about inconsistencies with the State law definitions of “assault,” FTA's proposed definition of “assault on a transit worker” is the same as the Federal statutory definition at 49 U.S.C. 5302. Although this definition potentially differs from State law and from transit agency definitions, FTA is adopting this definition to ensure the definition used for the purposes of this rule is consistent with the statute.
FTA appreciates that some transit agencies treat assault on a transit worker as both a safety and a security event. Congress directed FTA to address assaults on transit workers through both the NTD and FTA's safety program as part of FTA's work to improve safety at transit systems across the country. This final rule carries out the Congressional
FTA is adopting this definition as proposed.
FTA disagrees that the definition of “near-miss” is insufficient. Any safety
Further, FTA notes that the term “near-miss” is used only at § 673.23(b) where FTA identifies types of safety concerns that workers should be able to report through a transit worker safety reporting program. FTA disagrees with revising the definition, as it may limit the concerns that transit workers report through a transit worker safety reporting program. FTA may consider providing examples through technical assistance. While application of the term may vary across transit applications, FTA believes the term as defined is valid and useful.
Finally, FTA appreciates the comment recommending consistency with SSO Program guidance. FTA will consider this recommendation when finalizing 49 CFR part 674.
Another commenter expressed confusion about the word “potential” and asked for clarification as to whether the definition refers to outcomes.
Because the definition of “Rail Fixed Guideway Public Transportation System” is limited to rail, FTA believes it is not necessary to clarify that passenger ferry systems and other non-rail modes are excluded from the definition. The definition does not conflict with the definition of “fixed guideway” in 49 U.S.C. 5302. Therefore, FTA declines to add a definition of “fixed guideway” that includes bus rapid transit and people mover systems.
One of these commenters stated the definition was too narrow and conflicted with other definitions for the term “roadway” such as the one used in Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
One commenter requested clarification regarding whether the term includes busways that operate on their own right-of-way. The same commenter also asked whether this term included RTA maintenance facilities through which trains can move.
The term defined in this final rule means any land on which rail transit tracks and support infrastructure have been constructed, excluding station platforms. This means that “roadway” includes rail transit tracks and support infrastructure used in revenue service and rail transit tracks and support infrastructure used in non-revenue service, such as yards and sidings. In this final rule, the term is only used in the rail context. As such, FTA declines to use the definition of “roadway” found in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Several commenters explicitly opposed the proposal. Four commenters stated that the definition is overly broad and should be more narrowly defined. One of these commenters expressed that the definition of “safety event” creates too broad of a scope for the safety risk
Four commenters were SSOAs that stated removal of those terms would change the threshold for investigation and require investigations into an overly broad set of circumstances. One of these commenters expressed particular concern that the change would result in investigations of “damage to the environment.” Another of these commenters expressed that creating a generalized “safety event” category is confusing, and that FTA should consider the downstream effects of this change on SSO programs that rely on previous definitions. A participant at an FTA webinar asked whether this proposal would impact the accident investigation and SSOA reportable event thresholds. One RTA commenter requested clarification of what transit agencies will be expected to report within two hours.
Twelve commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition would cause inconsistency with the current definitions in 49 CFR part 674 and the NTD. One of these commenters requested clarification as to whether the new definition would change the NTD reporting requirements and FTA's severity determinations.
Some noted that this proposal creates a different investigation threshold for rail transit systems subject to part 674, and bus systems that are not subject to that regulation. One commenter asked whether the change implies that FTA intends to incorporate bus modes into part 674, or whether FTA will make a similar change to part 674 for rail modes. This commenter questioned what improvements these changes would achieve. Several commenters recommended that, if FTA adopts the proposal, it should establish consistent definitions and thresholds across FTA's programs.
Some commenters requested changes to FTA's proposed definition of “safety event.” One SSOA commenter suggested FTA include the phrase “assault on a transit worker” in its definition to ensure that such assaults require investigation. One commenter requested that FTA replace the word “unexpected” with “undesired.” Another commentor recommended FTA remove the word “unexpected” and replace “outcome” with “incident” in the definition. This commenter noted that injury and death are expected outcomes of certain incidents, such as subway surfing.
One transit agency supported the proposal but recommended that FTA restrict SSOAs from developing their own definitions for “injury” and “serious injury.”
Further, FTA does not believe that the definition results in an overly broad scope for the safety risk reduction program. The definition of “safety event” in this final rule does not define the safety performance measures required for the safety risk reduction program. Rather, FTA defines specific safety performance measures for the purposes of the safety performance target setting requirements of §§ 673.11(a)(3) and 673.11(a)(7)(iii) through the National Safety Plan. This includes the safety performance measures required of all transit agencies and the safety performance measures required for large urbanized area providers for the safety risk reduction program. This final rule does not define those safety performance measures.
FTA appreciates the comments from the four SSOAs that expressed concern that the removal of the terms “accident,” “incident,” “occurrence,” and “serious injury” from part 673 could impact the SSOA investigation thresholds by requiring investigation of an overly broad set of circumstances, including damage to the environment. Further, FTA appreciates SSOA commenters urging consideration of the downstream impacts of such changes. FTA has thoroughly reviewed the effects of the changes issued through this final rule and confirms that the definition of “safety event” does not change any SSOA investigation requirement established by part 674.
FTA notes that part 673 does not establish a two-hour notification requirement. The existing two-hour notification requirement referenced by the commenter is established by part 674, and any changes to that requirement would be executed through a rulemaking amending part 674.
FTA also appreciates the commenters that expressed concern that the proposed definition of “safety event,” coupled with the removal of the terms “accident,” “incident,” “occurrence,” and “serious injury,” could cause inconsistency with the current definitions in part 674 and the NTD. FTA again notes that the removal of these definitions from part 673 does not change any existing SSO Program investigation threshold or requirement established in part 674 or any existing NTD reporting requirements, nor do these changes conflict with either program.
FTA acknowledges and agrees with commenters who recommended FTA should establish consistent definitions across FTA's programs, including in the bus and rail contexts. FTA continues to ensure synchronization of definitions across programs where appropriate to support the use of thresholds to trigger specific program activity.
FTA carefully considered commenters' suggested changes to the definition of “safety event,” including the recommendation to add the phrase “assault on a transit worker” to ensure that such assaults require investigation. FTA again notes that the “safety event” definition provided in part 673 is intended to be general in nature and is not intended to define concrete thresholds for notification, reporting, or investigation. FTA also considered the suggestions to replace the word “unexpected” with “undesired” and to remove the word “unexpected.” FTA declines to make either of these suggested revisions as the word “unexpected” is used to distinguish planned outcomes from unexpected outcomes. FTA appreciates the commenter's example of subway surfing but believes that subway surfing is an unexpected outcome. While injuries and fatalities are likely to result from these events, the safety event itself is unexpected. FTA also considered the suggestion to replace “outcome” with “incident,” but declines to adopt this change. The addition of the term “incident” may cause confusion based on its previous definition within part 673 and its current definition within part 674.
FTA acknowledges the comment from an RTA recommending that FTA restrict SSOAs from developing their own definitions for “injury” and “serious injury.” FTA notes again that this final rule does not impact any existing SSOA investigation requirements established in part 674. Further, part 673 would not be the appropriate rule to establish any SSO Program notification or investigation-related requirement.
This final rule removes the term “top-down” from the definition, as proposed.
One commenter inquired whether the term “transit worker” includes a transit agency's administrative staff. Another commenter requested clarification of the term's applicability to short-term contract workers, such as individuals hired to distribute surveys or wayfinding support for a weekend shutdown.
One commenter urged FTA to define the term “plurality” in § 673.5 to clarify the Safety Committee formation requirements. The commenter expressed that the definition should communicate that when multiple labor organizations represent a transit system's frontline workers, the union with the largest membership chooses the frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee. This definition would also clarify that when an agency has a single union, the union chooses the frontline transit worker representatives regardless of the size of the agency's unrepresented workforce.
One commenter recommended FTA include a definition for “frontline transit worker.” One commenter requested FTA define the term “State Safety Oversight Program” and provided a suggested definition that included specific SSO Program requirements and a citation to 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3).
Several commenters, including transit agencies and an SSOA, stated that the removal of the term “serious injury” left transit agencies without a definition for “injury,” and two of these commenters expressed concern with the lack of an “injury” definition related to required safety performance measures.
FTA does not believe it is necessary to define commonly understood terms in the rule. For example, the terms “appropriately,” “elements,” “ineffective,” and “results,” among others suggested by commenters, do not need definitions to ensure understanding of the rule. Similarly, FTA does not believe it is necessary to define the term “plurality” in § 673.5 as
FTA appreciates the comment suggesting that FTA define “frontline transit worker” in the rule. However, FTA declines to establish a specific definition for this term, to preserve flexibility for transit agencies to apply this term based on their organizational and operating realities. Frontline transit worker roles and functions may vary across different transit agencies.
FTA also considered the recommendation to define “State Safety Oversight Program” in the rule. FTA disagrees that this term should be defined in this rule. FTA notes that the SSO Program requirements stated in the commenter's suggested definition are explicitly stated in 49 CFR part 674. FTA does not believe it is necessary to repeat them in part 673.
FTA proposed removing the term “serious injury” from the rule in response to industry feedback stating that the criteria established under that definition were difficult to apply and led to confusion, rather than clarity. This change is intended to simplify the classification of safety events, and FTA will adopt the removal of this term as proposed. However, FTA agrees with the commenter that recommended FTA add a definition of “injury” to the rule. This term is used in the regulation in the context of the safety risk reduction program, so FTA believes that adding a definition provides necessary clarity.
FTA's National Safety Plan, which establishes safety performance measures for the transit industry, directs users to the NTD for the definition of “injury.” In response to comments, and for consistency across programs, FTA has added the same definition of “injury” used by the NTD to this final rule.
Two commenters requested that FTA define timelines or milestones related to RTA SMS implementation to support SSOA oversight of RTAs. One of these commenters expressed that additional requirements from FTA and SSOAs make SMS more complex and less scalable.
One commenter stated that FTA should require transit agencies to include their Safety Management Policy statement in their ASP along with processes for workers to report safety concerns. The commenter noted that inclusion is necessary to ensure that the Safety Committee reviews and approves these processes.
FTA acknowledges the commenters that recommended FTA establish timeline or milestone requirements for RTA SMS implementation to support SSOA oversight activity. Further, FTA acknowledges the related concern that additional requirements may make the PTASP regulation less flexible and less scalable. In response, FTA notes that most revisions adopted in this final rule implement statutory changes. Further, FTA believes that establishing additional SMS implementation milestone requirements for RTAs would limit the flexibility and scalability of SMS. FTA notes that SSOAs may establish additional safety requirements for the RTAs they oversee.
In response to the commenter that requested FTA require agencies to incorporate the Safety Management Policy statement into their ASP, FTA notes that in § 673.23(a), FTA establishes requirements for the Safety Management Policy component of a transit agency's SMS and includes the requirement for an agency to have a written Safety Management Policy statement. Based on this existing requirement, FTA expects a transit agency to include or incorporate by reference a Safety Management Policy statement in its ASP, as well as the processes for transit workers to report safety concerns. FTA notes that any documents incorporated by reference in the ASP that are used to address PTASP regulation requirements are part of the Safety Committee's review and approval process. FTA declines to make changes to the regulatory text in response to these comments.
Three commenters asked whether a transit agency must follow the review, signature, and approval process outlined in § 673.11(a)(1) if the only change the agency made to the ASP was to update its safety performance targets (SPTs). Two commenters requested FTA issue guidance classifying SPT revisions as non-material substantive changes that are not required to undergo the § 673.11(a)(1) approval process.
Transit agencies that update the SPTs in their ASP must follow the review, signature, and approval process outlined in § 673.11(a)(1). This follows existing practice under the PTASP regulation. FTA notes that changes to SPTs may have a direct impact on transit agency activity. This is especially true with respect to the SPTs set as part
One commenter requested FTA clarify what consultation RTAs are required to have with SSOAs for purposes of this requirement. One commenter asked FTA to clarify that the SSOA develops the risk-based inspection program policies and procedures, and that the RTAs must comply with the SSOA's certified program. This commenter noted that per 49 U.S.C. 5329(k), the RTA must include the SSOA's policies and procedures in its ASP.
Another commenter recommended that FTA specify that RTAs do not need to comply with § 673.11(a)(6)(iii) until the SSOA's risk-based inspection program is in place. They also requested that FTA change the language in this paragraph from “provide access and required data” to “provide access to required data.”
One commenter observed that the NPRM did not address requirements and processes for RTAs to ensure that their ASP is approved by their SSOA.
In addition, FTA received a few comments regarding FTA's SSO Program set forth in 49 CFR part 674.
Further, FTA disagrees with the commenter's suggested language change regarding access. Through a risk-based inspection program, SSOAs will perform inspections at transit agencies based on safety risk. An SSOA needs data access to support risk determinations and inspection prioritization and needs physical access to conduct inspections. Accordingly, this final rule does not change the language proposed in the NPRM.
The Federal requirement for SSOAs to approve the ASPs for RTAs under their jurisdiction is established through § 673.13(a) and part 674. As described in part 674, the SSOA is responsible for establishing timelines relating to SSOA approval of RTA ASPs. FTA believes that this function should remain with the SSOA to permit the oversight entity to set an appropriate timeline. Example timelines are publicly available through FTA's PTASP Technical Assistance Center.
Regarding the comments relating to FTA's SSO program, FTA thanks commenters for these suggestions and will take them into consideration. However, FTA notes that they are outside the scope of the PTASP NPRM and therefore declines to address them in this final rule.
Two commenters requested that FTA permit transit agencies to set percentage-based safety performance targets.
Three commenters urged FTA to establish a formal mechanism to receive claims of PTASP noncompliance, investigate such claims, and issue related findings and penalties. In addition, the Amalgamated Transit Union in a March 26, 2024, Executive Order 12866 review meeting suggested that FTA provide specific notice of noncompliance with PTASP prior to withholding FTA capital funds. One also urged FTA to require transit agencies to submit their ASPs to FTA for a compliance review.
In addition, another commenter suggested that FTA require transit agencies to submit an ASP signature page as part of its annual PTASP certification under § 673.13. This signature page would state that the ASP was approved and would be signed by the Safety Committee's lead union representative and lead management representative.
Some commenters stated that FTA should take enforcement action against noncompliant agencies, including withholding Federal funds. Relatedly, one commenter urged that compliance with the PTASP regulation should be tied to Federal funding eligibility.
Due to the large number of transit agencies and the existing certification and review processes, FTA does not believe it is practical for FTA to review ASPs annually for each covered transit agency for compliance with the PTASP requirements. However, FTA notes that it does not need to wait until the Triennial Review process to review a transit agency's compliance with PTASP. FTA may do so whenever it deems necessary. Further, FTA does not believe that an additional requirement for an agency to upload a signature page is necessary at this time. FTA is considering the development of a mechanism to receive allegations of non-compliance with the PTASP requirements.
One of these commenters recommended that FTA encourage small transit agencies to establish joint labor-management safety committees voluntarily. A separate commenter asked what FTA's expectations are for labor representative involvement in the cooperation process, and whether collecting feedback in safety meetings would be sufficient. The same commenter argued that the ambiguity of this requirement and a lack of dispute resolution requirements could lead to conflict.
Two commenters asked how the requirement at § 673.17 dovetails with the proposed Safety Committee provisions at § 673.19.
In response to comments received regarding involvement of a labor union in the required cooperation with frontline employee representatives, FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and § 673.17(b) do not require transit agencies that do not serve a large urbanized area to involve a labor union in this cooperation process, but that transit agencies may opt to do this voluntarily. Similarly, FTA does not require transit agencies that do not meet the definition of “large urbanized area provider” to establish a Safety Committee but notes that these transit agencies may establish a Safety Committee voluntarily. FTA encourages these transit agencies to voluntarily establish Safety Committees and to involve labor unions in the required process of cooperating with frontline employee representatives.
FTA acknowledges the comment that requested clarification of how this requirement relates to the requirement
FTA is not establishing additional requirements or guidance on cooperation with frontline transit workers in this rule. FTA will consider this topic for future guidance and technical assistance.
FTA received comments from 30 local labor organizations expressing that FTA's proposed Safety Committee requirements are insufficient and allow transit agencies to ignore the safety concerns of frontline transit workers. These commenters urged FTA to ensure that the voices of frontline workers are heard in a meaningful way and that transit agencies utilize the safety-related expertise of these workers. They provided numerous examples of safety issues occurring at their transit agencies, including assaults on transit workers, inadequate restroom access, law enforcement response times, premises security, blind spots, and unsafe vehicle conditions. Some noted that their Safety Committees have not yet been effective because transit agencies are not listening to the committees.
Three commenters expressed concern that establishing and operating a Safety Committee will be a significant financial burden for transit agencies. One commenter requested FTA provide flexibility regarding the Safety Committee requirements, noting that employees on the Safety Committee are not always safety professionals.
Two comments addressed the number of Safety Committees that a transit agency may establish. A labor organization commenter stated that requiring one Safety Committee to review and approve multiple ASPs and to conduct its statutorily required responsibilities for multiple ASPs is too burdensome, and recommended that FTA require a “one ASP, one Safety Committee” approach. The commenter requested that FTA specify in the final rule that transit agencies must establish one Safety Committee per ASP and may not use the same Safety Committee for multiple ASPs. The second commenter raised concerns about committees other than the Safety Committee addressing issues related to operator assault.
One SSOA commenter asked when transit agencies must comply with the Safety Committee requirements established in the rule.
FTA appreciates that the formation and ongoing operation of the Safety Committee may increase the burden on transit agencies, both in terms of direct cost and worker availability. FTA reminds the commenters that the Safety Committee is a statutorily required function for applicable agencies and further believes that transit agencies will receive safety benefits from establishing and operating a Safety Committee. FTA also acknowledges the commenter who pointed out many Safety Committee members are not safety professionals. FTA understands this reality and does not expect a transit agency's Safety Committee to replace a transit agency's safety department. In practice, FTA encourages Safety Committees to utilize subject matter expertise from non-committee members to support decision-making. FTA understands that this is a common support structure for Safety Committees when it comes to data analysis and safety risk assessment, as well as information gathering related to specific agency systems, technologies, or procedures. FTA believes the language of this final rule offers sufficient flexibility that ensures the voices of frontline workers are heard in a meaningful way and that the Safety Committee can consult non-member subject matter expertise to support the Safety Committee's needs.
FTA agrees that using the same Safety Committee for multiple ASPs may make meeting Safety Committee requirements more cumbersome. However, to the extent that the Safety Committee is convened and conducts business as required in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and part 673, FTA declines to prohibit transit agencies from using the same Safety Committee for multiple ASPs as this may place unnecessary burdens on transit agencies that operate under multiple ASPs. FTA notes that if a transit agency with multiple ASPs would like to establish a Safety Committee for each ASP, this final rule does not prohibit them from doing so.
In response to the commenter that expressed concerns about a transit agency addressing issues such as transit worker assault in a special committee instead of the joint labor-management Safety Committee, FTA confirms that the responsibilities of the Safety Committee, as required in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and this final rule, must be addressed by the Safety Committee. FTA notes that a transit agency may use other mechanisms within the organization to address safety risk, such as a special committee, task force, or study, but these mechanisms cannot eliminate or satisfy the role of the Safety Committee to address any of the applicable requirements in this final rule.
FTA notes that in response to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it established one-time compliance dates of July 31, 2022, and December 31, 2022, to address certain Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requirements,
Proposed § 673.19(a)(2) set forth the requirement that Safety Committees be convened by a joint labor-management process. Two commenters suggested revising this language to state that the Safety Committee's structure and operating rules are determined by consensus decisions between labor and management.
FTA also encourages transit agencies and their Safety Committees to hold periodic discussions about the size and scope of the Safety Committee to determine whether it is appropriate to add additional members or to change the scope of the Safety Committee's purview, while ensuring that the Safety Committee's activities still meet all statutory and part 673 requirements.
FTA declines the suggestion to revise § 673.19(a)(2), as FTA's proposed language mirrors the statute. FTA notes that § 673.19(c) requires Safety Committee procedures to address the committee's composition, responsibilities, and operations. FTA refers readers to Sections II.F.4 and II.F.6. of the preamble below for additional discussion of this topic and Safety Committee decision-making and dispute resolution, respectively.
One commenter stated that the Safety Committee requirements are unrealistic for frontline transit worker representatives, noting that activities would require Safety Committees to meet at least weekly.
One transit agency commenter strongly supported FTA's proposed language in § 673.19(b) that, to the extent practicable, the Safety Committee must include frontline transit worker representatives from major transit service functions across the transit system. In contrast, a labor organization commenter explicitly opposed this proposed language and requested that FTA remove it from § 673.19(b). This commenter argued that imposing restrictions on the plurality union's choice is inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and FTA's existing guidance, and it would be inequitable without any corresponding restrictions on a transit agency's choice of management representatives. It argued that the plurality union must have flexibility to choose the transit worker representatives it finds most beneficial for the Safety Committee. A separate commenter requested that FTA clarify the rationale for its proposed language and clarify its application, given that the language does not appear in the statute.
Several comments pertained to the frontline transit worker representative selection process in § 673.19(b)(1). Six commenters expressed concern that the plurality union may select frontline transit worker representatives that are not representative of the entirety of the frontline workforce, particularly in cases where some workers are unrepresented or where an agency has more than one labor organization. Two of these commenters stated that a fairer selection process would be for FTA to require that frontline transit worker representatives be selected from each bargaining unit at a transit agency. One of these commenters urged FTA to establish Safety Committee selection requirements that reflect the objective of informed risk management.
Some comments requested additional guidance from FTA about the selection process. One commenter asked FTA to clarify the definition of “frontline transit worker” and asked whether volunteers and contractors need to be represented on the Safety Committee, given they are included in the definition of “transit worker” in § 673.5. Two commenters noted that transit agencies may have multiple contractors that provide service and operations and requested more guidance on the structure of frontline transit worker representation on Safety Committees in such situations. One of these commenters urged FTA to confirm that contractors should serve on Safety Committees, given that contractors may be impacted by Safety Committee recommendations. Another commenter stated that its Safety Committee does not include “line-level” labor representatives and that including such transit workers on the Safety Committee is not practical, and that the requirement for equal membership of management and frontline transit worker representatives is not realistic. Another commenter stated that some transit workers might not be interested in serving on the Safety Committee and should not be forced to participate.
One commenter stated that the selection criteria for frontline transit worker representatives can allow management to have an unfair advantage on the Safety Committee. The commenter cited an example of a frontline transit worker representative on the Safety Committee who is a member of a union that represents supervisors and asserted this means the Safety Committee no longer has equal numbers of frontline workers and management.
One comment pertained to proposed § 673.19(b)(2), which would require transit agencies without labor unions to adopt a mechanism for frontline transit workers to select the frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee. The commenter requested that FTA provide its rationale for this requirement and clarify its application, noting that it does not appear in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
One commenter noted that in the preamble to the NPRM, FTA distinguished between voting Safety Committee members and alternates who serve in a non-voting capacity. The commenter urged FTA to require that the number of non-voting members be limited to an equal number of management and frontline transit worker representatives. It stated that some transit agencies have attempted to add non-voting management positions to Safety Committees, which has tipped the balance in favor of management in a manner inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
Similarly, FTA acknowledges the comment that requested FTA remove the language about including frontline transit worker representatives from major transit service functions as it may impose restrictions on the plurality union's choice and would therefore be inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and inequitable without any corresponding restrictions on a transit agency's choice of management representatives. FTA notes that this language in § 673.19(b) provides parameters to strengthen frontline transit worker representation without contradicting statutory language on the selection of frontline employee representatives by the plurality labor organization. FTA expects that, to the extent practicable, the Safety Committee will include frontline transit worker representatives from major transit service functions. However, FTA notes that this may not be feasible in all situations; FTA includes the statement “to the extent practicable” to ensure flexibility for all transit agency applications.
The language in § 673.19(b) reflects FTA's belief that Safety Committees are most effective when they include representatives from multiple service functions. It is intended to strengthen the diversity of frontline worker representation and to ensure a breadth of perspective and expertise to support Safety Committee activity.
FTA also acknowledges comments expressing concern that the plurality union may select frontline transit worker representatives that are not representative of the entirety of the frontline workforce if workers are unrepresented or if an agency has more than one labor organization. FTA also acknowledges the two commenters who recommended that the section should require frontline transit worker representatives be selected from each bargaining unit at a transit agency. FTA agrees that selecting representatives from a narrow pool of only one service function or only from one represented labor organization can inadvertently reduce the effectiveness of the Safety Committee. However, FTA does not agree that FTA should require the plurality labor organization to select Safety Committee members who are not members of their labor union or who are not members of any labor union. FTA acknowledges the potential for narrow representation of frontline transit workers in the Safety Committee. As discussed above, FTA believes that the language in § 673.19(b) regarding including frontline transit worker representatives from major transit service functions to the extent practicable appropriately strengthens frontline worker representation. As such, FTA declines to establish the additional requirements suggested by commenters.
FTA acknowledges comments requesting additional guidance on the frontline transit worker representative selection process and the questions about whether volunteers and contractors need to be represented on the Safety Committee. While FTA has not established requirements for volunteers and contractors to participate as frontline transit worker representatives on the Safety Committee, the plurality labor organization may decide to include these types of workers on the Safety Committee. FTA appreciates that the composition of an agency's workforce may mean that individuals from multiple contracting groups are selected for the Safety Committee. To the extent the selection process meets the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A) and § 673.19(b), this is permissible. FTA does not currently have any further guidance in this final rule on Safety Committee membership at transit agencies with more than one contracting group. FTA notes this final rule does not require a transit agency that provides contracted service to have contractor management representatives on the Safety Committee, but the agency may do so.
FTA acknowledges the comments expressing concern that the Safety Committee membership requirements are not practicable, including Safety Committee membership by “line-level” transit workers and equal membership of management and frontline transit worker representatives. In response, FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A) requires the labor organization that represents the plurality of the transit agency's frontline transit workers to select frontline transit worker representatives. The statute does not provide the transit agency the option to determine that including “line-level” transit workers is not practicable. Further, FTA reminds the commenters that the Safety Committee's equal membership of frontline employee representatives and management representatives is required by statute.
FTA acknowledges that frontline transit worker representatives may include workers in a supervisory position, as described by the commenter. However, FTA disagrees that this contradicts the requirement for equal frontline transit worker and management representation because some supervisory roles, such as line, route, or regional supervisors, involve work that takes place primarily in frontline environments. Such roles can support operators, monitor field conditions, adjust service levels or routes to respond to potential service disruptions, interact with customers to provide service information, and de-escalate situations that have the potential to result in assaults on operators and other transit workers. If the plurality labor union identifies such an individual as a frontline transit worker representative, they may select this individual for the Safety Committee.
FTA acknowledges the comment regarding § 673.19(b)(2), which requested that FTA provide its rationale for requiring transit agencies without labor unions to adopt a mechanism for frontline transit workers to select the frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee. FTA notes this requirement helps to ensure that when no frontline transit workers are represented by a labor union, the frontline transit workforce will still have a voice in the selection of their representatives on the agency's Safety Committee.
Finally, FTA acknowledges the commenter who urged FTA to require that the number of non-voting Safety Committee members be limited to an equal number of management and frontline transit worker representatives. FTA notes that it has removed all references to voting in the final rule, as described further in section II.F.4 below, and instead, FTA expects Safety Committees to define decision-making mechanisms.
One commenter noted that the procedural requirements are not present in the statute and asked whether transit agencies are required to negotiate the procedures with frontline transit worker representatives. The commenter stated this could impact collective bargaining agreements and have cost impacts for the transit agency.
One commenter expressed general support for this provision but suggested that FTA require an agency's Accountable Executive to approve the Safety Committee procedures and that they be included by reference in the ASP. The commenter expressed concern that disputes over the procedures could delay the ASP approval process and result in negotiations with labor organizations over issues that are outside of a collective bargaining agreement. Two commenters recommended the Safety Committee procedures should be approved by the Accountable Executive and included by reference in the ASP, but not approved by the Safety Committee. One commenter expressed concern that Safety Committees do not always function collaboratively, from setting meeting agenda items to voting on decision points.
Two commenters urged FTA to require transit agencies to reach an agreement with transit workers about the Safety Committee's structure and procedures through either consensus or democratic voting. One of these commenters urged that such an agreement must be in writing and included or incorporated by reference in the ASP, expressing that requiring transit agencies merely to “address” the procedural items listed in § 673.19(c) is inadequate.
FTA acknowledges that the statute does not define specific procedures for Safety Committees. FTA notes that, as with existing requirements regarding SMS processes and activities, the PTASP regulation establishes procedural requirements to ensure effective implementation of statutory requirements. In response to the commenter's question about potential impacts on collective bargaining agreements, FTA notes that negotiation is not explicitly required, but § 673.19(a)(2) requires the Safety Committee to be convened by a joint labor-management process. FTA acknowledges that, in practice, this may involve some level of negotiation.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that suggested FTA require the Accountable Executive to approve the Safety Committee procedures and that they be included by reference in the ASP. Section 673.19(c) requires agencies to include or incorporate by reference in their ASP the Safety Committee procedures. Further, as described in Section II.F.5 below, the Accountable Executive's role is to sign the ASP and ensure that the ASP and SMS processes are carried out. As such, the commenter's request was addressed by the NPRM, and no changes are made in the final rule in response to this comment. FTA notes that this final rule does not establish Accountable Executive veto power over the contents of the ASP, because that would be inconsistent with statutory requirements relating to the composition of Safety Committees, as well as the statutory requirement that the Safety Committee and Board of Directors must approve the ASP—not the Accountable Executive.
FTA disagrees that it is appropriate to exclude the Safety Committee procedures portion of the ASP, even if incorporated by reference, from the Safety Committee's approval. The statute requires the Safety Committee to approve the ASP, and as noted above, the procedures must be included or incorporated by reference in the ASP.
FTA acknowledges the concern regarding challenges associated with operating a Safety Committee with equal frontline transit worker and management engagement. FTA encourages Safety Committees to work collaboratively to set and execute procedures for determining Safety Committee agenda items and making decisions. These items are discussed further in the preamble sections below.
FTA believes that the use of the word “address” before listing the minimum requirements for Safety Committee procedures is appropriate because it provides flexibility, and the accompanying regulatory requirements are sufficient to ensure a transparent and standardized process. In § 673.19(c), FTA requires each large urbanized area provider to include or incorporate by reference in its ASP the procedures regarding the composition, responsibilities, and operations of the Safety Committee, including the organizational structure, size, and composition of the Safety Committee and how it will be chaired; how the Safety Committee will reach and record decisions; and how the Safety Committee will manage disputes to ensure it carries out its operations. FTA notes that the ASP and any referenced documents or appendices that are used to address PTASP regulation requirements are part of the annual review and approval process to confirm that the ASP meets PTASP regulation requirements. Thus, the Safety Committee will review and approve Safety Committee procedures included or referenced in the ASP through this process. Further, a Safety Committee may opt to use its procedure for reaching decisions, which may include voting or consensus mechanisms, to formally endorse its structure and procedures.
Two commenters noted the need for Safety Committees to have regular, formal meetings. A local union commenter expressed concern that at their transit agency, management creates and presents Safety Committee meeting agendas without seeking input or a vote from frontline transit worker representatives, and that management representatives have not shared meeting minutes with the frontline transit worker representatives.
In response to the comment about meeting minutes, FTA notes that it is adopting the proposed requirement in§ 673.19(c)(2) for Safety Committee procedures to document how meeting minutes will be recorded and maintained.
FTA received two comments on its proposed language in § 673.19(c)(3), which states that Safety Committee procedures must include any required ASP and SMS training for members. A commenter asked FTA to clarify whether this training is required, or if a transit agency and its SSOA may decide whether to provide it. This commenter further recommended that FTA address any safety training requirements for Safety Committee members in the Safety Promotion section of the regulation at § 673.29 instead.
Two commenters asked whether Safety Committee members are required to comply with the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (PTSCTP) requirements established under 49 CFR part 672.
FTA acknowledges the comment that noted training for Safety Committee members would add costs to the transit agency. FTA acknowledges that FTA-provided or FTA-recommended training for Safety Committee members is useful and has the potential to reduce burden on transit agencies, and FTA will consider this topic for future technical assistance.
The PTSCTP requires at 49 CFR part 672 that RTAs designate transit workers who are directly responsible for safety oversight and ensure those workers comply with PTSCTP training requirements. The PTSCTP also offers a voluntary program for bus transit workers designated by their transit agency as having direct safety oversight responsibility. FTA agrees that participation in the PTSCTP curriculum can provide valuable context for Safety Committee members, but it does not require that Safety Committee members participate in the PTSCTP, unless they are otherwise required to do so under part 672.
Due to the varying operating environments of transit systems, FTA is deferring to transit agencies to establish and document the appropriate process of coordination between the Safety Committee, Board of Directors or equivalent entity, and Accountable Executive, including details on the frequency and level of coordination.
Three commenters requested that FTA require the Safety Committee procedures include an agreement between management and frontline transit worker representatives regarding participation in Safety Committee meetings by non-members. Two commenters stated that at some transit agencies, managers who are not on the Safety Committee participate in meetings, creating a power imbalance between management and frontline transit worker representatives. Another commenter noted that it is reasonable to expect that a Safety Committee will seek the expertise of others within and outside the transit system as it seeks to identify and define safety risk mitigations and suggested that the Safety Committee define procedures for non-members to participate in Safety Committee meetings.
FTA agrees that Safety Committee meetings should be attended by all members. While FTA is not establishing requirements for attendance, FTA recommends that agencies document in their ASPs any Safety Committee meeting scheduling and attendance policies.
FTA appreciates the concern voiced by the commenters that Safety Committee participation by non-members may result in a power imbalance. FTA agrees that procedures for outside participation in Safety Committee meetings helps to ensure that the Safety Committee conducts its vital work effectively, while maintaining the balance between management and frontline transit worker representatives required by statute. FTA defines these requirements at § 673.19(c)(5), which requires the Safety Committee procedures include how the Safety Committee will access technical experts, including other transit workers, to serve in an advisory capacity as needed.
The Safety Committee's participation in the Safety Risk Management process is statutorily required under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii). FTA does not agree that the Safety Committee's support of the Safety Risk Management process dilutes the power of data-driven risk management. The Safety Committee's participation in the Safety Risk Management process and the related setting of safety performance targets explicitly supports data-driven decision-making.
Some commenters, including transit agencies, argued that final decisions regarding a transit agency's safety program should rest with the Accountable Executive, including the contents of an ASP, implementation of Safety Committee recommendations, and resolution of Safety Committee disputes. Some commenters argued that this aligns authority with accountability, as the Accountable Executive is ultimately accountable for the agency's safety performance. In support of this view, three commenters cited a prior Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) on FTA's website about this issue, which FTA removed prior to publication of the NPRM.
Conversely, FTA received two comment letters from certain members of Congress explaining Congressional intent in enacting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law amendments to 49 U.S.C. 5329 relating to Safety Committees. These members of Congress stated that the intent of these amendments was to require a transit agency's Accountable Executive to implement safety risk mitigations that are recommended by the Safety Committee and included in the ASP. In their view, the Accountable Executive may not revisit, ignore, or reject elements of an approved ASP. Both letters urged FTA to remove any language from the rule that relegates the Safety Committee to an advisory role, including language that FTA proposed in § 673.23 regarding the Accountable Executive's role to “receive and consider” safety risk mitigations.
Similarly, several other commenters, including labor organizations, opposed Accountable Executive veto power over Safety Committee recommendations and urged FTA to require the Accountable Executive to implement all Safety Committee recommendations. Commenters stated that giving the Accountable Executive veto power would tip the power balance on Safety Committees in favor of management and noted that management already has a voice on the Safety Committee through the management representative members. Several commenters asserted that giving the Accountable Executive veto power would make the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law changes to 49 U.S.C. 5329 ineffective. Many stated that frontline transit workers already had the opportunity to raise safety concerns to management prior to establishing a Safety Committee, urging FTA to require transit agency management to act on these recommendations to make meaningful change.
Two labor organizations noted that FTA removed the FAQ referenced by other commenters from FTA's website and one argued that this former FAQ should not be relied upon as guidance regarding the role of the Safety Committee.
In response to comments, FTA is adopting several revisions to the rule to clarify the role of the Accountable Executive regarding implementation of mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee. As a preliminary matter, FTA agrees with the commenters who opined that the Accountable Executive must implement safety risk mitigations that are included in the ASP. Section 673.5 of FTA's 2018 PTASP final rule clearly conveys that the Accountable Executive is “ultimately responsible for carrying out the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan of a public transportation agency.” FTA understands commenters' concern about aligning authority and accountability. However, the Accountable Executive must implement an ASP that has been duly approved by the agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors. If the approved ASP includes mitigations, the Accountable Executive must carry them out. This is consistent with the 2018 final rule and FTA's current practice.
Further, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) requires transit agencies to include mitigations in their ASP related to the safety risk reduction program, including mitigations related to vehicular and pedestrian accidents involving buses and assaults on transit workers. To harmonize the regulation with this statutory requirement, FTA is adopting §§ 673.11(a)(7)(iv) and 673.25(d)(5), which convey that the ASP must include safety risk reduction program mitigations when recommended by the Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment. FTA refers readers to Section II.G of this preamble for more discussion about these changes.
Due to the above, FTA agrees with the commenters who argued that proposed § 673.23(d)(1) is contrary to statute. This proposal stated that the Accountable Executive “receives and considers” mitigations from the Safety Committee. Given that the Accountable Executive is ultimately responsible for implementing the transit agency's approved ASP, FTA agrees that the Accountable Executive must implement the safety risk reduction program mitigations included in the ASP under § 673.11(a)(7)(iv). While FTA acknowledges that the Accountable Executive retains control or direction over the human and capital resources needed to maintain an agency's ASP under § 673.5, the Accountable Executive does not have authority under part 673 to decline to implement elements of an approved ASP. Accordingly, FTA is adopting revisions to § 673.23(d)(1) to convey that the Accountable Executive must implement the safety risk reduction program mitigations included in the ASP under § 673.11(a)(7)(iv).
FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) does not require that the ASP include mitigations unrelated to the safety risk reduction program. As such, and in response to comments, FTA also has revised § 673.23(d)(1) to clarify the Accountable Executive's role with respect to these other mitigations. This provision requires that the Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigations that are recommended by the Safety Committee (
Regarding the PTASP FAQ mentioned by commenters, FTA rescinded the FAQ in 2022. Transit agencies should not rely upon it as current guidance regarding the role of the Accountable Executive and Safety Committee.
Five commenters stated that FTA should require that Safety Committees focus exclusively on safety. One of these commenters suggested FTA do so by revising the definition of “Safety Committee” in § 673.5.
Three commenters opposed FTA's proposed language in § 673.19(d) that
FTA notes that the Safety Committee does not replace the transit agency's Safety Department but rather augments the transit agency's SMS by supporting Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance processes such as the safety risk reduction program. The Safety Committee has several statutorily defined responsibilities to oversee safety performance through review and approval of the ASP, setting annual safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program, and supporting the operation of the transit agency's SMS. Therefore, FTA does not agree that it is appropriate to replace “oversee” with alternative language.
This final rule does not eliminate any existing authority, accountability, or responsibility established for the Accountable Executive, Safety Department, or Chief Safety Officer. FTA reminds commenters the Safety Committee has an equal number of management representatives, which may include members of the Safety Department.
FTA received comments asking for clarification regarding “voting” as the mechanism for approving an ASP. One transit agency noted the word “vote” in proposed § 673.19(c) implies that Safety Committees must approve the ASP through voting, which is contrary to the commenter's previous understanding. This commenter noted that voting is workable if the Accountable Executive is the tiebreaker. Two labor commenters stated that Safety Committees should be required to use a one-person-one-vote system with majority rule or another voting system.
In contrast, one transit agency stated that FTA should remove the word “vote” from § 673.19(c), arguing that voting increases burden and the likelihood of conflict and that Safety Committees should be permitted to establish their own decision-making processes.
FTA received several comments voicing opinions regarding Safety Committee tiebreaking and dispute resolution mechanisms; these commenters noted that deadlocks are likely given that committees are comprised of equal numbers of management and transit worker representatives. FTA received one comment asking what to do if the Safety Committee could not come to an agreement.
Several commenters shared feedback on FTA's proposal in § 673.19(c)(7), which would require the ASP to include procedures on how the Safety Committee will manage disputes and tie votes to ensure it carries out its operations. Five commenters stated that FTA should require a specific tiebreaking mechanism in the final rule, with one commenter noting that leaving this dispute resolution process up to the transit agency could lead to confusion and inequity. Several commenters, including transit agencies and a transit industry association, either suggested that FTA designate the Accountable Executive or Chief Safety Officer as the tiebreaker for the Safety Committee.
One of these commenters stated that having the Accountable Executive as the tiebreaker ensures the Accountable Executive remains accountable and that Federal funds are protected.
FTA received several comments, including from labor organizations and certain members of Congress, arguing that the Accountable Executive must not act unilaterally as a tiebreaker for the Safety Committee. Commenters stated that designating a member of management as a tiebreaker would circumvent the requirement for equal representation on the Safety Committee and that FTA should establish a fair and consistent process that maintains the power balance between management and frontline transit workers. These commenters urged FTA instead to require transit agencies to use the dispute resolution procedure in the transit agency's collective bargaining agreement or some other mutually agreed-upon process.
One commenter also suggested that FTA require nonunionized transit agencies to establish a process to send Safety Committee disputes to a neutral third party decisionmaker.
One commenter noted it would be problematic to send tie votes to a third-party decision-maker selected only by one side or to allow a committee chair to break ties. Two other commenters opposed sending disputes to a neutral arbitrator or mediator, stating that third party neutrals might not have appropriate background knowledge to address the issue and that this would be a lengthy process.
One commenter requested clarification regarding who will write the dispute resolution process and how it will be approved and noted that if the process is subject to labor-management agreement there could be two deadlocks
Two commenters requested that FTA provide guidance on Safety Committee dispute resolution best practices. One commenter recommended that FTA convene a national working group with transit labor and management representatives to establish these best practices and requested that FTA provide a sample procedure or workflow for Safety Committees to use to resolve disputes.
However, FTA agrees with commenters that Safety Committees need an agreed-upon decision-making process. It is therefore requiring at §§ 673.19(c)(6) and (8) that Safety Committee procedures include how the committee will reach and record decisions and manage disputes to ensure the Safety Committee carries out its operations. Safety Committees may decide to adopt a voting mechanism, but FTA is not requiring them to do so. This will provide each Safety Committee the flexibility to adopt the decision-making mechanism that best works for them.
In response to comments requesting clarification about disputes, FTA also has revised § 673.19(c)(8) to clarify that the Safety Committee may use the dispute resolution or arbitration process from the transit agency's collective bargaining agreement, or a different process that the Safety Committee develops and agrees upon. As noted above, FTA is not mandating a specific mechanism or avenue for resolving disputes, as FTA has determined that transit agencies and their Safety Committees should have flexibility to establish the procedure best suited to their unique environments. Agencies may decide to leverage existing dispute resolution processes, such as sending disputes to a neutral third-party or using the dispute resolution or arbitration process from the transit agency's collective bargaining agreement, but they are not required to do so.
However, FTA also revised § 673.19(c)(8) to make clear that the Accountable Executive, may not be the tiebreaker to resolve Safety Committee disputes. FTA has defined the Accountable Executive to have the responsibility for signing the ASP prior to it being sent to the Safety Committee for approval. Additionally, the Accountable Executive is ultimately responsible for implementing the transit agency's approved ASP. Because of these unique roles within the PTASP process, if the Accountable Executive also were to serve as the tiebreaker, it impermissibly would give them authority to perform the roles prescribed by Congress for Safety Committees, including approval of an ASP, establishment of performance targets for the risk reduction program, and determination of risk reduction program mitigations for inclusion in the ASP.
FTA agrees that the dispute resolution process must be agreed upon by the members of the Safety Committee using the Safety Committee procedures in § 673.19(c)(6) to reach and record decisions and subject to the provisions in § 673.19(c)(8). The ASP and any documents incorporated by reference that are necessary for fulfilling PTASP requirements, including the Safety Committee procedures, are subject to the Safety Committee's review through the annual ASP review and approval process. FTA also strongly encourages transit agencies and Safety Committees to work collaboratively to establish these procedures prior to the ASP approval process.
FTA appreciates the comments requesting additional guidance and will consider actions relating to Safety Committee decision-making in the future.
Three commenters stated the Safety Committee should not be involved in ASP approval process and argued that labor should participate in the development process in an advisory role instead. Two of these commenters asked FTA to mirror the language regarding Safety Committee ASP review on proposed § 673.17(b)(1), which states the ASP is developed in cooperation with frontline transit workers. Three commenters suggested that the final rule state that the Safety Committee reviews “draft” ASP language, arguing that the Safety Committee has no authority to change policies or procedures summarized or referenced in the ASP. Similarly, a separate commenter asked FTA to clarify that the underlying drafting of the ASP most likely will be completed by agency management or safety consultants, not the Safety Committee. One commenter noted that Safety Committee approval of the ASP adds burden for transit agencies without any additional funding support.
In contrast, FTA received other comments supporting Safety Committee approval of the ASP. Comments from members of Congress and a labor organization stated that congressional intent was for Safety Committees to have more than an advisory role, with the labor organization stating that Congress intended Safety Committees to be delegated decisions on safety matters.
One commenter stated that transit agencies do not always provide sufficient time for Safety Committee members to review ASP updates, which means that Safety Committees cannot reasonably and adequately approve the ASP.
Two commenters stated that the rule should establish explicit requirements for how Safety Committees approve ASPs.
FTA declines to establish more specific requirements for how Safety Committees approve ASPs. As discussed in section II.F.6 of this preamble, FTA is adopting requirements at § 673.19(c)(6) for documenting how the Safety Committee will reach and record decisions and at § 673.19(c)(8) for documenting how the Safety Committee will manage disputes to ensure it carries out its operations. FTA is providing each Safety Committee flexibility to adopt the decision-making mechanism that best works for them. FTA understands the concern regarding Safety Committees potentially not having sufficient time to review the ASP. Section 673.11(a) requires the transit agency to establish a timeline for the annual ASP review and update. Further, § 673.19(c)(9) requires that Safety Committee procedures address how the committee will carry out its responsibilities, which includes ASP approval. FTA encourages transit agencies and Safety Committees to
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established a role for the Safety Committee to approve the ASP as one vitally important step in the ASP approval process. This final rule reflects the critical role Congress established for the Safety Committee.
Two commenters stated that FTA should require transit agencies to allow Safety Committees to inspect all transit system vehicles and properties at least once per year and to inspect any vehicle or workspace involved in an accident, assault, or other serious safety event within 48 hours of the incident. One local union noted anecdotally that its transit agency has not permitted the Safety Committee to conduct walk-through inspections of transit property.
FTA disagrees that it is appropriate for FTA to require transit agencies to permit Safety Committee access to specific locations for inspections. Congress granted specific RTA inspection authority to State Safety Oversight Agencies but has not established this authority for Safety Committees. Further, transit agency safety departments typically conduct these types of activities. FTA does not expect a transit agency's Safety Committee to replace a transit agency's safety department. As noted above, FTA expects that Safety Committees will have access to information reasonably necessary for them to fulfill their statutory responsibilities. This may include information related to inspections, to the extent it is reasonably necessary for the Safety Committee to identify and recommend mitigations under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(I).
Many commenters, including transit agencies and an SSOA, asked FTA to clarify the relationship between the safety risk reduction program and FTA's existing SMS requirements. One commenter recommended that FTA clarify that the safety risk reduction program is a prescribed example of the Safety Risk Management (SRM) process under SMS. Another commenter argued that if the safety risk reduction program is just a component of the SRM process, then FTA should consider including it in the SRM section of the regulation (§ 673.25). Relatedly, two commenters requested that FTA clarify the difference between safety risk reduction and safety risk mitigation.
In the NPRM, FTA proposed that all safety risk reduction program requirements would be in a distinct section of the regulation (§ 673.20). In response to comments, FTA has determined that this organization creates confusion by obscuring the program's relationship with SMS. To clarify this understanding and to ensure the consistent application of SMS processes, FTA has removed § 673.20 from the final rule and has relocated these provisions to other sections of the regulation, including the Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance sections. FTA believes this change reinforces that a safety risk reduction program is not separate from SMS and that required safety risk reduction program elements and activities should operate within the Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance components of SMS.
Accordingly, provisions regarding identifying mitigations for the safety risk reduction program are now located in the Safety Risk Mitigation section of the regulation at §§ 673.25(d)(3) through (d)(6). Provisions regarding continuous improvement requirements for the safety risk reduction program are now located in the Safety Assurance section at §§ 673.27(d)(1) through (d)(3).
In addition, FTA has located the provisions setting forth the general elements of the safety risk reduction program to § 673.11(a)(7). FTA believes that this is the most appropriate location because § 673.11 sets forth the elements that a transit agency's ASP must contain. As mentioned previously, the safety risk reduction program must be in the ASP per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I).
Several comments pertained to approval of safety risk reduction program performance targets. One commenter urged FTA to require that the Accountable Executive approve the performance targets. One commenter stated that both labor and management should certify their satisfaction with the safety performance targets, as well as whether the targets have been met. A separate commenter stated that FTA should require management to adopt any safety performance targets that the Safety Committee sets.
Another commenter noted that setting safety performance targets to reduce vehicular and pedestrian accidents involving buses through the safety risk reduction program would require data from local and State highway agencies and railroad companies. The commenter stated that this would add considerable burden but would be effective and would increase interagency cooperation.
FTA notes that per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4), the Safety Committee is the entity required by statute to set the safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program. The Safety Committee's role is not merely to “advise” on the performance targets, but rather to set them.
FTA acknowledges the comments recommending FTA establish additional requirements for approval of safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program. FTA appreciates the recommendations and has carefully considered each but declines to make any changes in response. FTA notes that, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(F) safety performance targets must be included in the ASP, which is then approved by the Safety Committee and transit agency's Board of Directors or equivalent entity. This approval process incorporates the perspectives of both frontline transit worker and transit agency management representatives, as well as the Board of Directors. Because the PTASP regulation requires the ASP to undergo annual review and approval, and Safety Committee approval of the ASP is part of the annual review and approval process, FTA does not believe that an additional approval process for safety performance targets is necessary. In addition, FTA believes that the equal representation of labor and management on the Safety Committee sufficiently addresses the commenter's concern that the Safety Committee might set unattainable performance targets. FTA also notes that the safety set-aside is a minimum amount that a transit agency must spend on safety related projects.
As discussed in section II.F.5 of this preamble, the rule does not establish Accountable Executive veto power over the contents of the ASP. The Accountable Executive is ultimately responsible for carrying out the ASP that has been approved by the Safety Committee and the transit agency's Board of Directors, including safety performance targets.
In response to the comment that data would be required from local and State highway agencies and railroad companies to set safety performance targets, FTA notes that the required safety performance measures for the safety risk reduction program are defined in FTA's National Safety Plan and only require data that transit agencies are already required to report to the NTD. A transit agency will not need to gather additional data from local and State highway agencies and railroad companies to set safety performance targets for these required measures.
Three commenters expressed concern regarding setting targets using a three-year rolling average of NTD data when the industry has not previously tracked the related metrics or has tracked the metrics under different thresholds. One of these commenters urged FTA to communicate to SSOAs that transit agencies do not need to set safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program until they have three years of NTD data. Two commenters recommended that FTA require agencies to report data based on historical NTD assault definitions until three years of data under the new NTD “assault on a transit worker” definition is available. One of them expressed that transit agencies should not compare assault data using more than one metric, as this could lead to inaccuracies. Another commenter noted that the public might oppose an agency setting a fatality target higher than zero based on a 3-year rolling average of NTD data; however, setting a target at zero might be unattainable.
In response to the commenters that suggested that FTA encourage Safety Committees to use existing data from other processes to support safety performance measurement, FTA agrees that a range of monitoring techniques can be useful for assessing progress towards reaching established safety performance targets, including existing processes identified by the commenter such as internal safety reviews and SSOA reviews. FTA notes that § 673.19(d)(3)(iii) establishes the responsibility for Safety Committees to identify safety deficiencies, including any instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety performance target set for the safety risk reduction program. Transit agencies and their Safety Committees define the processes they will use to monitor safety performance and progress toward targets and instances where the agency does not meet an established safety performance target.
FTA appreciates that several transit agencies may not previously have reported certain metrics and therefore do not have three years of historical NTD data on which to base their safety performance targets. FTA proposed in the NPRM that Safety Committees will not be required to set safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program until the agency has been required to report three years of data to the NTD corresponding to such performance measure. FTA is adopting this proposal in the final rule without change. FTA also intends to communicate this to transit agencies and SSOAs through guidance and technical assistance.
FTA acknowledges the two commenters that recommended FTA require agencies to report data based on historical NTD definitions until three years of data under the new NTD “assault on a transit worker” definition is available. As explained above, this final rule incorporates the statutory requirement that Safety Committees use a three-year rolling average of data reported to the NTD. Therefore, target setting for a safety risk reduction program performance measure would begin only once an agency has been required to report data to the NTD for three years corresponding to such performance measure. In response to the comment about public perception of a non-zero safety performance target, FTA notes that Safety Committees are statutorily required to set safety performance targets using a three-year rolling average of data reported by the transit agency to the NTD and that this may mean establishing safety performance targets that are zero or non-zero.
Two commenters noted that safety performance typically ebbs and flows, particularly at smaller transit agencies. These commenters argued that some variation is mere “noise,” thus agencies should not be expected to have their safety performance targets reflect a continual reduction every year. One of these commenters stated that requiring an annual reduction might incentivize transit agencies to underreport safety events to the NTD. In addition, this commenter expressed concern that SSOAs and FTA might use this requirement as a justification to develop corrective action plans or other enforcement action.
Another commenter expressed confusion about FTA's statement in the NPRM that Safety Committees have flexibility to determine the amount of annual reduction defined by the targets, stating that this seems inconsistent with FTA's role in establishing performance measures through the National Safety Plan.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that raised a concern that requiring an annual reduction could incentivize transit agencies to underreport safety events to the NTD. All transit agencies that are recipients or subrecipients of section 5307 funds are statutorily required to submit data to the NTD in uniform categories. Failure to report data in accordance with NTD requirements may result in a transit agency being ineligible to receive certain funding under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
This final rule does not establish any SSOA safety performance measurement requirements or requirements relating to corrective action plans or SSOA enforcement. FTA encourages the commenter to refer to 49 CFR part 674 for SSO Program requirements. However, FTA notes that this final rule does not limit or restrict existing FTA or SSOA enforcement authority.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that expressed confusion about FTA's statement in the NPRM that Safety Committees have flexibility to determine the amount of annual reduction defined by the targets. The statute requires Safety Committees to set safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program requirements “using a 3-year rolling average of the data submitted” to the NTD. FTA interprets this to mean Safety Committees do not have to set a target that matches the three-year rolling average, but that they must base their target on this average. For example, a
A labor organization stated that FTA's proposed language in § 673.20(a)(1), which sets forth the two statutory areas that must be included in a safety risk reduction program, is insufficient because it requires programs to merely “address” those two topics. This commenter and one additional commenter urged FTA to require transit agencies to set forth in their safety risk reduction programs specific actions that the transit agency will take, as recommended by the Safety Committee, to address the mitigation of vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles, and the mitigation of assaults on transit workers. It also requested that these specific actions include project timelines.
One transit agency opposed the identification of the two areas in § 673.20(a)(1), stating that FTA's identification of safety concerns conflicts with SMS and an agency's Safety Risk Management process. This commenter recommended that FTA either delete the reference to the two areas or revise the provision to allow the transit agency to identify the top hazards for the safety risk reduction program.
Several commenters discussed whether transit agencies should be required to implement safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program that are identified and recommended by the Safety Committee.
Several commenters opposed FTA's proposed language at § 673.20(a)(4), which would require the Accountable Executive to implement certain mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee but allowed the Accountable Executive to decline to do so if they determine the mitigation will not improve the agency's overall safety performance. FTA received two comment letters from certain members of Congress stating that allowing the Accountable Executive to decline a safety risk reduction program mitigation recommended by the Safety Committee is contrary to Congressional intent in enacting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These members of Congress urged FTA to remove this language, asserting there is no statutory authority for transit agency management to ignore or reject elements of an approved ASP, including safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program identified by the Safety Committee. Several labor organization commenters expressed similar views and stated that transit agencies must implement all safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program identified by the Safety Committee.
Four commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed requirement for the Accountable Executive to “consider” specific safety risk mitigations, as proposed at §§ 673.20(a)(2) and (a)(3). One commenter argued that this does not go far enough and urged FTA to require agencies to implement these mitigations when directed by the Safety Committee. Of these commenters, three supported their view by asserting that the safety risk reduction program is included in the ASP. Thus, when an ASP is approved, safety risk reduction program safety risk mitigations are approved as well.
Other commenters, including transit agencies and a transit industry association, opposed proposed § 673.20(a)(4) because it stated that the Accountable Executive “must” implement one or more of the mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee. Arguments raised by these commenters include that the provision is (1) too prescriptive, (2) overrides the agency's existing SMS and safety risk management process, (3) impinges upon the relationship between RTAs and SSOAs, (4) exceeds statutory requirements, and (5) diminishes the authority of the Accountable Executive. These commenters argued that the transit agency and Accountable Executive should not be required to implement Safety Committee recommendations, with one stating that mitigation implementation should be in accordance with the agency's hazard matrix. One commenter recommended replacing the word “must” with “shall consider.”
Two commenters expressed that requiring the consideration of specific mitigations in the safety risk reduction program, as proposed at §§ 673.20(a)(2) and (a)(3), is inconsistent with SMS principles and will cause SMS to be less scalable and flexible. One of these commenters stated that the identification of two safety concerns and specific safety risk mitigations is inconsistent with data-driven risk assessment. The other commenter stated that a transit agency should have flexibility to determine mitigations based on its SMS processes. This commenter also asked FTA to clarify how it will gauge compliance with the requirement, urging FTA not to find an agency non-compliant if a mitigation is not appropriate for the agency's unique operating characteristics. Another commenter expressed concern that the mitigations mentioned in this provision are not readily available and require
One commenter observed that the preamble to the NPRM stated that transit agencies must consider mitigations related to assault mitigation infrastructure and technology in any type of transit vehicle and in transit facilities, but § 673.20(a)(3) only included “transit vehicles.”
FTA notes that the two program areas for the safety risk reduction program identified in § 673.20(a)(1) are statutorily required. FTA therefore declines to adopt the suggestion to delete or revise them. As described in section II.G.2 of the preamble above, FTA is adopting the provision originally proposed at § 673.20(a)(1) but has relocated it to § 673.11(a)(7).
FTA did not state explicitly in the NPRM that mitigations for the safety risk reduction program are included in the ASP. However, FTA agrees with commenters that this is what the statute requires. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1) sets forth the required elements of a transit agency's ASP. This includes the safety risk reduction program at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I). This provision further requires that the safety risk reduction program include mitigations, including (1) measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus operators that contribute to accidents, including retrofits to vehicles in revenue service and specifications for future procurements that reduce visibility impairments; and (2) the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on buses. FTA therefore understands that per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I), the ASP must include the safety risk reduction program, which in turn must include mitigations. To harmonize the regulation with the statutory requirement, and in response to comments, FTA has added §§ 673.11(a)(7)(iv) and 673.25(d)(5) to the regulation. Together, these provisions convey that for large urbanized area providers, the ASP must include mitigations for the safety risk reduction program, including mitigations relating to vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles or assaults on transit workers, when identified and recommended by a Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment. FTA notes that this is consistent with the standard SRM process in § 673.25(d)(1), in which safety risk mitigations are identified when they are “necessary as a result of the agency's safety risk assessment to reduce the likelihood and severity of the consequences.” However, FTA does not agree that the ASP must also include specific project timelines for carrying out these mitigations. Transit agencies may include timelines but are not required by statute or regulation to do so.
FTA appreciates the numerous comments discussing whether the transit agency must implement the safety risk reduction program mitigations that the Safety Committee recommends. FTA proposed at § 673.20(a)(4) of the NPRM that the Accountable Executive must implement one or more mitigations related to assaults and injuries to transit workers when recommended by the Safety Committee based on a safety risk analysis. This provision would have allowed the Accountable Executive to decline to implement the mitigation if the Accountable Executive determined it would not improve the agency's overall safety performance. FTA further stated in the NPRM preamble that the Accountable Executive could reject a mitigation due to its “direction over the human and capital resources needed to develop and maintain the ASP and . . . ultimate accountability for the agency's safety performance.” Upon thorough consideration of the comments received and re-analysis of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I), FTA has determined that this proposal is inconsistent with the statute. Accordingly, FTA is adopting several revisions to the safety risk reduction program provisions to harmonize the regulation with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
FTA agrees with the commenters who argued that the Accountable Executive must implement safety risk mitigations that are included in the ASP. Given that the statute requires a transit agency's ASP to include certain mitigations for the safety risk reduction program, the Accountable Executive must implement these mitigations. While FTA acknowledges that the Accountable Executive has discretion over the human and capital resources needed to carry out the ASP under § 673.5, the Accountable Executive does not have authority to decline to implement elements of an ASP that has been duly approved by the agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors.
FTA therefore declines to adopt proposed § 673.20(a)(4), as it would have allowed the Accountable Executive to decline to implement certain mitigations in a manner that is inconsistent with the statute. FTA instead is adopting provisions at §§ 673.25(d)(6) and 673.23(d)(1) to set forth the responsibilities of the Accountable Executive regarding Safety Committee mitigations for the safety risk reduction program. Readers should refer to section II.F.5 of the preamble above for more discussion about these changes and the role of the Accountable Executive.
Given these revisions that FTA is adopting in this final rule, FTA does not agree that it is necessary to change the word “consider,” as proposed in §§ 670.20(a)(2)-(3). The word “consider” reflects the flexibility inherent in SMS. Transit agencies and their Safety Committees have flexibility to recommend the safety risk mitigations through the safety risk reduction program that are appropriate to their unique operating environments. FTA therefore substantively adopts the provisions originally proposed at §§ 670.20(a)(2)-(3) but has relocated them to §§ 673.25(d)(3)-(4), as explained in section II.G.2 of this preamble above.
FTA acknowledges the numerous commenters that opposed FTA requiring an Accountable Executive to implement safety risk mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee due to concerns regarding conflict with existing SMS principles, conflict with the authority of the Accountable Executive, reduced implementation flexibility, a lack of accepted standards for the associated technologies, and a lack of availability of mitigations. FTA notes that this requirement is established by statute. As discussed in the Safety Committee section above, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) requires the ASP to include mitigations related to the safety risk reduction program, including (1) measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus operators that contribute to accidents and (2) the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on buses when a safety risk assessment determines such measures would be effective at reducing associated safety events. FTA further notes that this final rule maintains the role of the Accountable Executive as having control or direction over the human and capital resources needed to develop and implement both the transit agency's ASP and the transit agency's Transit Asset Management Plan. Further, FTA notes that not all safety risk mitigations are required to be included in the ASP; only those identified by the Safety Committee through the safety risk reduction program.
FTA also acknowledges commenters that urged FTA to require transit agencies to implement all safety risk mitigations identified by the Safety Committee as part of the safety risk reduction program. FTA confirms that this final rule requires the implementation of all such safety risk mitigations. One of the Safety Committee's key responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii) is “identifying and recommending risk-based mitigations or strategies necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences identified through the agency's safety risk assessment.” As discussed in the Safety Committee section above, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) requires the ASP to include mitigations related to the safety risk reduction program, including (1) measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus operators that contribute to accidents and (2) the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on buses when a safety risk assessment determines such measures would be effective at reducing associated safety events.
The statute does not require an agency to include mitigations unrelated to the safety risk reduction program in the ASP. For any mitigations identified and recommended by the Safety Committee that are not included in the ASP, FTA is requiring at § 673.23(d)(1)(ii) that an Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigations that are recommended by the Safety Committee. In response to the comment regarding FTA's evaluation of compliance with requirements related to safety risk mitigations established through the safety risk reduction program, FTA notes that it monitors compliance with part 673 requirements through its existing triennial review process. However, FTA notes that transit agencies are required to allocate their safety set aside to address a missed safety performance target in the safety risk reduction program. This means that an agency will still be required to allocate resources in an instance of an inappropriate or ineffective safety risk mitigation that has not enabled the agency to meet the associated safety performance target. In this way, the requirements of the safety risk reduction program help support continuous improvement by ensuring that ineffective safety risk mitigations are addressed to support improvement in safety performance.
Regarding the inconsistency between the preamble and regulatory text in the NPRM regarding consideration of the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology, FTA notes that there was an error in proposed § 673.20(a)(3). FTA confirms that the preamble was correct: This requirement is intended to apply to both transit vehicles and transit facilities and assaults on transit workers are not limited to assaults that occur on transit vehicles. In response to comments, FTA has revised this provision to include the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology in transit facilities. FTA has relocated this provision from § 673.20(a)(3) to § 673.25(d)(4), as discussed in section II.G.2 of this preamble above.
In response to the commenter that asked about safety set-aside application to existing safety projects, FTA notes that transit agencies may allocate the set-aside to ongoing safety initiatives rather than completely new safety projects under certain circumstances. The funds must be directed to safety-related activities. If the recipient is meeting the safety performance targets established under the safety risk reduction program, the recipient may continue to direct the set-aside funds to any safety-related purpose, including ongoing initiatives and new safety projects.
Some safety expenditures identified to satisfy the safety requirement may also be used to support the 1% requirement for security-related projects for the urbanized area (UZA) under 49 U.S.C. 5307(c)(1)(J) if the recipient can justify the expense as both a safety and a security expense. If the recipient is not meeting its established safety performance target(s) established under the safety risk reduction program, the recipient may continue to expend the safety set-aside on ongoing safety initiatives if those initiatives are reasonably likely to assist the recipient in meeting the missed target(s). If the ongoing initiatives are not reasonably likely to assist the recipient in meeting the applicable target(s), it may be necessary for the recipient to expend its set-aside funds on new safety projects.
FTA acknowledges additional comments requesting clarification on the safety set-aside and its applications. In response, FTA notes that the safety set-aside establishes a minimum amount of funds that must be allocated to safety-related projects eligible under section 5307. In response to the commenter that expressed concern that the safety set-aside for a small RTA may be insufficient, FTA notes that the set-aside is statutorily defined as “not less than” 0.75 percent of the transit agency's section 5307 funds. It is therefore a floor, not a ceiling. Transit agencies' safety-related spending is not limited to the amount of the safety set-aside, and transit agencies may spend section 5307 funds on safety projects that exceed the amount of the safety set-aside. Further, FTA notes that this final rule does not alter existing project funding eligibilities under section 5307; project expenses must be eligible for reimbursement under section 5307.
FTA acknowledges the comments regarding the application of safety set-aside requirements for large urbanized area providers that are not direct recipients, and notes that most large urbanized area providers receiving section 5307 funds are direct recipients. This final rule and the safety set-aside requirements apply to all operators of public transportation systems that are recipients and subrecipients of section 5307 funds. It is the direct recipient's responsibility to ensure its subrecipients are complying with the requirement, similarly to how they are required to ensure any subrecipients are complying with other requirements, such as civil rights or procurement requirements. FTA plans on developing technical assistance related to the safety set-aside, including application to subrecipients.
In addition, several commenters sought clarification about set-aside allocation requirements in § 673.20(e)(3). One commenter asked whether an agency needs to specifically call out the missed safety performance target when it applies the set-aside and asked for guidance for section 5307 recipients to better understand how to address the requirement at the time of application for section 5307 funds. Three commenters asked whether the entire set-aside must be allocated to address a single unmet performance target or if a transit agency may use this funding to address additional safety performance targets. Two of these commenters noted that some safety risk mitigations, such as a bus stop relocation or a new Standard Operating Procedure, may cost significantly less than the set-aside and asked whether the entire set-aside nonetheless must be allocated in such cases.
One commenter asked who at the transit agency determines whether a project is “reasonably likely to assist the agency in meeting the target” when allocating the safety set-aside under § 673.20(e)(3). A separate commenter urged FTA to give transit agencies flexibility to identify eligible expenses that are “reasonably likely” to achieve safety performance targets, noting that some agencies may already be working to address the specific safety issue. One commenter asked FTA to clarify the meaning of a “safety related project.”
Another commenter asked how allocating the set-aside will work when an agency continues to miss a safety performance target, but the set-aside has already been allocated to a mitigation addressing a previously missed target.
One commenter asked whether the use of safety set-aside funds in the following fiscal year referred to the Federal fiscal year or the transit agency's fiscal year.
FTA acknowledges the commenters seeking clarification on the ability for transit agencies to allocate the set-aside toward ongoing or planned safety projects rather than just new ones when an agency misses a safety risk reduction program performance target. FTA notes, as discussed in the section above, that transit agencies may allocate the safety set-aside to ongoing safety initiatives rather than completely new safety projects, to the extent they are reasonably likely to assist the agency in meeting the safety performance target in the future, as required by statute. If the initiatives are not reasonably likely to assist the recipient in meeting the applicable safety performance target(s), it may be necessary for the recipient to expend its set-aside funds on new safety projects.
FTA also acknowledges the commenter's question about addressing the set-aside at the time an agency is applying for section 5307 funds. Recipients must identify when they are using the safety set-aside to address a missed safety performance target in the applicable grant application in TrAMS; reserve funds to assist the recipient in meeting any missed targets; and document intended compliance with the requirement at the pre-award stage. Recipients should note the safety goal or safety-related project in a section 5307 grant's executive summary.
FTA appreciates the comments received requesting clarification about whether they must allocate the entire set-aside to address a single unmet performance target. FTA clarifies that if
FTA appreciates the comments received requesting clarification about who determines whether a mitigation is “reasonably likely” to assist the transit agency in meeting the safety performance target in the future. FTA notes that § 673.27(d)(3)(iii) requires the transit agency to allocate its set aside to projects reasonably likely to assist in meeting the missed safety risk reduction program safety performance target in the future. As described in § 673.19(d)(3)(i), one of the Safety Committee's statutory responsibilities is identifying and recommending safety risk mitigations, including safety risk mitigations associated with any instance where the transit agency did not meet a safety performance target for the safety risk reduction program. FTA interprets the identification of safety risk mitigations by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(3)(i) to mean that the Safety Committee under their authority may identify mitigations that are reasonably likely to assist in meeting the missed safety risk reduction program safety performance target. FTA also notes that under the agency's Safety Risk Management process, sources outside of the Safety Committee may also identify safety risk mitigations, such as through a transit agency's safety department.
FTA acknowledges the commenter's question about an agency that continually misses a safety performance target. FTA notes that the safety set-aside is calculated annually based on a transit agency's section 5307 funding. If an agency fails to meet a safety performance target under the safety risk reduction program for a second year, the agency must again use its safety set-aside for safety risk mitigations reasonably likely to assist the transit agency in meeting the target in the future. FTA clarifies that the term “fiscal year” in this final rule refers to the Federal fiscal year.
FTA is adopting the proposed provisions relating to the safety set-aside, but has relocated them from § 673.20(e) to § 673.27(d)(3), as explained in Section II.G.2 of this preamble above.
FTA received comments related to the transit worker safety reporting program from several commenters. Commenters suggested that the requirements at § 673.23(b) should include requirements for anonymous reporting. These commenters expressed concern that transit workers are reluctant to report hazards due to fear of retaliation and without comprehensive near-miss reports, management cannot address root causes adequately.
One commenter asked for an example of when the transit worker safety reporting program should be used for an assault. Another commenter stated that FTA should clarify or more narrowly define the kinds of things that are meant to be reported to ensure transit agencies and workers have a clear understanding of what exactly should be reported. One commenter stated that it appeared that the proposed changes would impact Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) whistleblower requirements.
As for the comments that asked FTA to require transit worker safety reporting programs to include anonymous reporting mechanisms, FTA declines to establish anonymity requirements at this time. As discussed in section II.M.3 of this preamble, FTA received several responses related to its request for information on confidential close-call/near-miss reporting systems. FTA thanks commenters for this feedback and is considering this information to inform future FTA action and technical assistance. FTA encourages transit agencies to consider providing ways for transit workers to anonymously report safety concerns and to consider participating in third-party confidential close-call reporting programs such as the Close Call Data Program operated by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
In response to the commenter who asked for an example of when transit workers may use a transit worker safety reporting program to report instances of transit worker assault, FTA requires transit agencies at § 673.23(b) to establish transit worker safety reporting programs that allow transit workers to report safety concerns, “including assaults on transit workers.” FTA expects transit worker safety reporting programs to allow transit workers to report any instance of an assault on a transit worker as defined at § 673.5. FTA declines to more narrowly define the types of concerns that may be reported through a transit worker safety reporting program, as that may have the unintended impact of limiting safety concern reporting. In accordance with existing SMS implementation principles, FTA preserves the flexibility for transit agencies to establish the transit worker safety reporting processes that are most effective for their
One commenter requested that FTA clarify which data and information regarding exposure to infectious disease transit agencies must consider as part of the hazard identification process.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law establishes a requirement at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D) for ASPs to address minimizing exposure to infectious diseases, consistent with guidelines from the CDC or a State health authority. This statutory requirement is incorporated into the final rule at § 673.25(b)(2)(ii). Data and information regarding exposure to infectious disease could include, but are not limited to, CDC or State public health authority advisories, warnings, and recommendations for preventing the spread of infectious disease and best practices identified during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
For a discussion of Safety Risk Mitigations for the Safety Risk Reduction Program, please refer to Section II.G.4 of the preamble above.
One transit agency noted that FTA should fund pilot programs for fully enclosed bus operator compartments to mitigate assault risk. Relatedly, one commenter applauded FTA's pilot program for bus compartment redesign.
FTA also received a comment arguing that requiring agencies to “address” the role of the Safety Committee in § 673.25(d)(1) is inadequate. The commenter stated that FTA should require transit agencies to use their Safety Committees to identify safety risk mitigations and other safety improvements and require management to act on safety risk mitigation information and requests from the Safety Committee and implement these changes. This commenter also requested that FTA add the Safety Committee to proposed § 673.25(d)(2), which lists the sources that transit agencies must consider for safety risk mitigation. Another commenter recommended that transit agencies should use a threshold based on a hazard matrix to decide when safety risk mitigations should be submitted to the Accountable Executive to reduce the number of mitigations that must be reviewed by the Accountable Executive.
In response to the commenter who requested that FTA fund pilot programs for fully enclosed bus operator compartments, FTA notes that its Bus Operator Compartment Program supports research projects that protect operators from assault and improve their view of the road through innovative designs. FTA appreciates the comment in support of this program. FTA has launched the Transit Worker and Rider Safety Best Practices Research Project, which supports research to identify public safety concerns for transit workers and riders, determine the most effective mitigation strategies to minimize the safety risk associated with those safety concerns, and promote the implementation of those strategies.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that argued that FTA should require transit agencies to use their Safety Committee to identify mitigations and safety improvements, and that transit agency management implement safety risk mitigations that are recommended by the Safety Committee. The final rule incorporates at § 673.19(d) the statutory requirement that Safety Committees identify and recommend risk-based mitigations or strategies necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences identified through the agency's safety risk assessment. As discussed in Section II.G.4 of the preamble above, the final rule requires a transit agency's Accountable Executive to implement safety risk mitigations that have been included in the ASP, including mitigations for the safety risk reduction program recommended by the Safety Committee. The Accountable Executive does not have authority to decline to implement elements of an ASP that has been duly approved by the agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors, including safety risk mitigations. FTA declines to add the Safety Committee to the list of required sources for safety risk mitigations in § 673.25(d)(2). FTA notes that the list is intended to be limited to external sources, such as FTA and oversight bodies such as an SSOA, and does not include internal transit agency sources such as a Safety Committee, subject matter experts, a transit agency's safety department, or other internal sources.
FTA declines to add a new requirement for transit agencies to use a threshold based on a hazard matrix to decide when safety risk mitigations should be submitted to the Accountable Executive because this would conflict with requirements at §§ 673.11(a), 673.25(d), and 673.27(d) regarding the role of the Safety Committee to identify and recommend safety risk mitigations and would reduce the flexibility afforded transit agencies to develop safety risk management processes based on the size, scope, and complexity of the transit agency.
One commenter asked whether transit agencies must describe their annual safety performance assessment processes under § 673.27(d) in a document separate from the ASP. They further asked for additional information on FTA's expectations for this annual safety performance assessment, including whether the Safety Committee is required to play a role in the performance assessment. The commenter noted the Safety Committee members may lack the training or time to do so. One commenter argued that FTA should require large urbanized area providers to use their Safety Committee to conduct this safety performance assessment.
Another commenter asked whether the continuous improvement component of SMS occurs only after the full implementation of SMS and whether activities that a transit agency undertakes to improve SMS processes or safety performance during SMS implementation are considered to be continuous improvement.
Another commenter asked for clarification regarding the differences between Management of Change, System Modification, and Configuration Management. Similarly, another commenter asked FTA to clarify how to measure deficiencies for purposes of § 673.27(d)(4) and how to audit deficiencies. The commenter also argued that requiring transit agencies to integrate SSOA concerns into the continuous improvement process would make it difficult to prioritize risk management in a data-driven way without a process for appealing SSOA decisions. The commenter requested clarification as to whether there are limits to what the SSOA may require an RTA to include in the continuous improvement process.
Regarding the role of the Safety Committee in the Safety Assurance process, one commenter urged FTA to require transit systems to use their Safety Committees to identify ineffective, inappropriate, and poorly implemented mitigations and for the transit agency to implement any changes that the Safety Committee directs. This commenter also suggested that FTA should require the Accountable Executive to implement the plan to address deficiencies identified the annual safety performance assessments required under proposed § 673.27(d)(2).
Transit agencies may describe their annual safety performance assessment process within their ASP or incorporate it in the ASP by reference. FTA agrees with the commenter that argued the Safety Committee must be involved in a large urbanized area provider's safety performance assessment process. One of the Safety Committee's key responsibilities established under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii) is “identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous improvement.” FTA therefore adopts the proposed requirement at § 673.27(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the safety performance assessment process for large urbanized area providers address the role of the agency's Safety Committee. Transit agencies and their Safety Committee have flexibility to determine how to implement these continuous improvement activities. However, the Safety Committee's procedures must address how the Safety Committee will carry out this responsibility, as required by § 673.19(c)(9). FTA understands the concerns regarding Safety Committee training and refers readers to section II.F.4 above for discussion of this topic.
In response to the question regarding when continuous improvement requirements apply, FTA confirms that the continuous improvement requirements established at § 673.27(d) are not dependent on an agency reaching a specific level of SMS implementation.
In response to the commenter that asked for clarification regarding the differences between Management of Change, System Modification, and Configuration Management, FTA notes that “management of change” is a subheading under § 673.27 and a required process within the Safety Assurance component of an SMS. Given that “system modification” and “configuration management” are not found in part 673, FTA does not believe it is necessary to define these two terms in this final rule.
FTA appreciates the question from the commenter regarding the term “deficiencies” used in § 673.27(d). FTA notes that § 673.27(d) references two specific types of deficiencies: deficiencies in the transit agency's SMS and deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against safety performance targets. Deficiencies in the transit agency's SMS include concerns with the processes and procedures defined by the agency to carry out the transit agency's SMS. Deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against safety performance targets include instances where the transit agency fails to meet a safety performance target, including targets for the safety risk reduction program for large urbanized area providers. This final rule does not establish any audit requirements related to safety performance deficiencies. Defining requirements for an RTA to appeal the decisions of an SSOA are out of scope for this final rule. FTA notes that § 673.27(d)(1)(iii) requires an RTA's continuous improvement process to address any specific SSOA internal safety review requirements. FTA confirms that incorporation of internal safety review processes into the continuous improvement element of the ASP should not interfere with an agency's ability to prioritize safety risk.
FTA appreciates the comment recommending that FTA require transit systems to use their safety committees to identify ineffective, inappropriate, and poorly implemented mitigations. FTA agrees with the commenter and notes that it is a key statutorily required responsibility under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii) for the Safety Committee to identify “mitigations or
Another commenter asked FTA to clarify the requirement to provide refresher training “as necessary,” and who decides whether refresher training is necessary. One commenter stated anecdotally that their transit agency has not provided safety-related refresher training in a decade and that some transit workers have not received safety training at all.
One commenter stated that FTA's proposed requirements are not specific enough to ensure agencies provide effective training. This commenter suggested that FTA require transit agencies to provide safety training to new hires within 30 days of their hiring date and annual refresher training to all frontline transit workers. It also suggested that FTA should require safety training to be interactive and for transit agencies to update training materials at least every five years. Another commenter suggested that training on how to report safety issues be included in the ASP.
One commenter expressed concern about the feasibility and cost of the new training requirements. Another commenter suggested that FTA provide technical assistance to assist agencies and their contractors implement training programs.
One commenter asked FTA to clarify the proposed requirement in § 673.29(a)(2) for large urbanized area providers to include maintenance workers in their safety training program, specifically whether this includes technical maintenance training. A separate commenter suggested that FTA create a certification program for mechanics regarding repair of electric and alternative fuel buses, and other new technologies. One commenter agreed with limiting FTA's proposal in § 673.29(a)(2) to large urbanized area providers. Conversely, one commenter suggested that FTA broaden this requirement to all transit agencies, including small transit providers and another commenter similarly suggested that FTA combine § 673.29(a)(1) with § 673.29(a)(2) for ease of implementation.
Under § 673.29(a)(1), FTA requires transit agencies to implement refresher training “as necessary” for their comprehensive safety training program. FTA appreciates the recommendation to establish more specific requirements related to timelines for initial and refresher training. However, FTA believes that the flexibility regarding the type and frequency of refresher training ensures that agencies can establish requirements that are responsive to the size, scope, and complexity of their organization. For example, transit agencies may determine that annual refresher training is necessary for certain elements of their PTASP comprehensive safety training program. In response to the commenter who stated that their transit agency has not provided safety-related refresher training in a decade and that some transit workers have not received safety training at all, FTA notes that this final rule requires transit agencies to establish a comprehensive safety training program for all operations transit workers and transit workers directly responsible for safety in the transit agency's public transportation system. For large urbanized area providers, the agency's comprehensive safety training program also must include maintenance transit workers. FTA notes that SSOAs may implement specific refresher training requirements for RTAs under their jurisdiction.
FTA agrees that interactive training and routine updates of training materials are good practices for training programs. FTA declines to require these practices or the commenter's suggested timelines for initial and refresher training due to the flexibility afforded to transit agencies by the PTASP regulation, but FTA will consider these topics for future technical assistance. FTA appreciates the suggestion that it establish requirements for the development and delivery of training on how to report safety issues. FTA agrees that training on safety concern reporting and transit worker safety reporting processes at an agency are important. This final rule does not establish specific training requirements related to these individual program elements. However, FTA encourages transit agencies to document all such training as part of its comprehensive safety training program.
FTA acknowledges the comment that noted training requirements would add costs to the transit agency. FTA acknowledges that FTA-provided or FTA-recommended training is useful and has the potential to reduce burden on transit agencies, and FTA will consider the development of additional training resources to support these efforts.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(H)(ii) that large urbanized area providers include maintenance workers in their PTASP comprehensive safety training program. FTA appreciates the benefit transit agencies could receive from including maintenance transit workers in the comprehensive safety training program. Transit agencies that are not large urbanized area providers may include portions of their maintenance
Transit agencies do not need to include technical maintenance-specific training in their comprehensive safety training program. Rather, under § 673.29(a), large urbanized area providers must include maintenance transit workers in their comprehensive safety training program, which includes de-escalation training, safety concern identification and reporting training, and refresher training as necessary.
FTA appreciates the suggestion received from the commenter regarding the creation of a certification program for mechanics regarding repair of electric and alternative fuel buses, and other new technologies but notes that this final rule does not establish a new certification program and that existing safety certification training requirements are defined at 49 CFR part 672.
FTA declines to combine §§ 673.29(a)(1) and 673.29(a)(2). Given that these two paragraphs have different applicability, FTA believes that keeping them separate is the clearest way to articulate these requirements.
One commenter expressed concern regarding the time and cost of de-escalation training. Another commenter requested technical assistance from FTA about the requirement, including a list of vendors on FTA's website similar to the COVID-19 resources page that FTA established during the pandemic. Another commenter argued that if RTAs are allowed to create their own de-escalation training, FTA should provide them with guidelines.
Two commenters recommended that FTA update the de-escalation training offered through NTI using current industry standards, with one commenter expressing concern that the current training course is outdated and ineffective.
A participant at an FTA webinar and several commenters expressed concern that the de-escalation training requirement is just a “check-the-box” exercise. One commenter stated that crime prevention and workplace violence are complex issues that frequently involve individuals experiencing mental health or substance abuse crises or repeat criminal offenders who do not respond to de-escalation techniques. It stated that the transit industry needs more than this rule change to address these issues.
Two commenters requested that FTA more clearly define which individuals must complete de-escalation training. This commenter also asked if a transit agency should consider any metrics for determining whether to provide de-escalation training and if it can use a threshold for requiring de-escalation training based on the number of assaults experienced at an agency per year.
One commenter stated that FTA did not specify how often de-escalation training must occur.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that noted refresher training requirements would add costs to the transit agency. FTA notes that FTA-provided or FTA-recommended training is useful and has the potential to reduce burden on transit agencies, and FTA will consider the development of additional refresher training resources to support these efforts. FTA acknowledges the SSOA commenter that argued that if RTAs are allowed to create their own de-escalation training, FTA should provide them with guidelines. In keeping with the inherent flexibility on an SMS, FTA believes that an RTA may develop its own de-escalation training and declines to establish specific guidelines that may restrict an RTA from addressing its own specific de-escalation needs. Further, FTA notes that SSOAs may establish additional requirements for the RTAs they oversee, including requirements related to the comprehensive safety training program.
FTA also appreciates the commenters that recommended FTA provide a list of vendors on FTA's website similar to the approach used by FTA to publish the COVID-19 resources toolkit, as well as guidelines to RTAs. FTA will consider these suggestions as it develops additional technical assistance related to de-escalation training.
FTA agrees that ongoing de-escalation training is beneficial. While FTA is not requiring a specific frequency for de-escalation training, FTA encourages transit agencies to establish a routine cadence for de-escalation training. FTA appreciates that transit workers may encounter a variety of situations, including ones involving individuals experiencing mental health or substance abuse crises, and believes that de-escalation training can help prepare transit workers to handle these situations. Transit agencies could consider using metrics, such as the number of assaults experienced per year, to determine how often to provide de-escalation refresher training.
Three commenters stated that FTA should clarify the requirements for integrating the results of cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives and Safety Committee activities into the agency's overall safety communication process at § 673.29(b). One commenter requested further clarification on whether FTA is mandating routine communications to the organization regarding safety and what those communications must include.
One commenter asked whether these safety communication activities should be included in the ASP or in separate documentation.
FTA is not establishing more explicit requirements regarding minimum communication relating to frontline transit worker representatives and Safety Committees. In deference to the significant differences in scope and mechanisms for communication throughout the transit industry, FTA believes that transit agencies should have flexibility in this area. FTA will consider technical assistance on safety communication processes in the future.
Finally, FTA appreciates the question regarding whether these safety communication activities should be included in the ASP or in separate documentation. Under § 673.11(a)(2), a transit agency's ASP must document the processes and activities related to SMS implementation, which a transit agency may include or incorporate by reference. This includes the safety communication processes established under § 673.29(b). However, FTA does not expect transit agencies to document the actual communications in an ASP. Please note that each transit agency must keep these records for a minimum of three years consistent with the recordkeeping requirements in § 673.31.
One commenter stated that, in many transit agencies, bus operators who leave the driver's seat to de-escalate a developing situation or to defend a passenger or themselves from an active assault are dismissed from their position. They stated that policies like these make operators feel vulnerable and powerless in the lead up to or during an assault. An additional commenter stated that, when an assault involving a transit worker and a passenger occurs, regardless of who initiated or actively participated in the assault, the driver is often punished and not the passenger.
One commenter stressed the importance of an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for transit workers who are involved in assaults or other events, as well as access to paid time off to address physical and mental health needs following an event.
One commenter urged for increased Federal penalties for assaults on transit workers, specifically elevating the crime to a felony and banning offenders from using public transportation, noting that some state legal codes include passenger bans.
FTA has also initiated a separate rulemaking on Transit Worker and Public Safety. This rule would establish minimum baseline standards and risk-based requirements to address transit worker and public safety based on the most current research and available information, including but not limited to, addressing the requirements of Section 3022 of the FAST Act. The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce serious injury events and fatalities from assaults involving transit workers, passengers, and the public.
FTA appreciates that de-escalation and response to an assault are complicated in a transit environment, particularly when aboard a moving vehicle. FTA encourages transit agencies to work with their frontline transit workforce and Safety Committees as appropriate to identify policies and techniques that enable transit workers to respond in a safe and effective manner.
FTA agrees that EAPs can benefit transit workers and transit agencies after a traumatic event. While FTA is not requiring transit agencies to implement an EAP, transit agencies may voluntarily develop such a program to support their workforce. FTA has aggregated a list of mental health resources to support transit workers during challenging
FTA notes that legal remedies such as increased Federal penalties for assaults on transit workers, elevation of assaults on transit workers to a felony, and banning offenders from using public transportation are outside the scope of FTA's authority.
One commenter stated that transit agencies should collect information from transit passengers who witness assaults on transit workers, noting that assaults may otherwise go unreported. Another commenter stated that some transit agencies are not keeping accurate records of the assaults that transit workers are experiencing. Other commenters expressed that assaults on transit workers are severely underreported. One comment requested clarification on whether assaults on transit workers data are safety data or security data.
One commenter also stated their transit dispatch “tends to over-report” and offered the example of an argument being reported as verbal assault. The commenter stated the data cleanup and training required under the rule as written would lead to a great administrative burden.
FTA appreciates the value of witnesses when investigating instances of assaults on transit workers. FTA encourages transit agencies to leverage witness information as possible to help inform investigative, safety reporting, and Safety Risk Management activities.
FTA appreciates the comments regarding the challenges of reporting assaults on a transit worker and questions about classification of assaults as safety events or security events. FTA acknowledges that assaults on transit workers historically have been severely underreported and that this has created challenges for remedying this issue. The new NTD assault reporting requirements enacted by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will help transit industry stakeholders better understand and address assaults on transit workers. FTA notes that the NTD has already established reporting requirements for assaults on transit workers. Nothing in this final rule changes those requirements or increases data collection or reporting burden related to assaults on transit workers. As explained in Section II.B.3 of the preamble above, the NTD communicates guidance to the NTD reporting community to clarify these reporting requirements. FTA refers readers to that section of the preamble for additional discussion of this topic.
In the NPRM, FTA requested information from stakeholders regarding their experience establishing confidential reporting methods for transit workers. FTA did not propose any new requirements on this topic in the NPRM. FTA received several responses relating to its request for information. FTA thanks commenters for this feedback and is considering this information to inform future FTA action and technical assistance.
For de-escalation training, one commenter recommended that FTA provide hours for agency personnel to provide and track the progress of such training. The commenter sought additional clarification about the de-escalation training estimates, including whether FTA is requiring 0.25 hours of annual de-escalation training.
For the Safety Committee requirement, one commenter claimed that the first-year estimates for HR managers and safety managers seemed too low. Another commenter claimed that the estimates only provided hours for six individuals, although Safety Committees at larger transit agencies might be much larger; it also did not account for the administrative burden of preparing meeting materials and minutes.
For continuous improvement, one commenter stated that the first-year hours for the Chief Safety Officer and Safety Manager do not fully account for the cost of developing and implementing continuous improvement. In addition, the estimates should include hours for the Accountable Executive.
For the safety risk reduction program, one commenter claimed that estimates do not accurately reflect the resources needed to develop and implement the program, given the number of safety events the commenter's agency experienced annually.
For frontline worker involvement with ASP, one commenter claimed that the estimates do not include frontline personnel and that the hour estimates are too low.
Finally, one comment stated the estimated costs are generally too low but did not identify specific issues.
One commenter expressed concern that the proposed requirements are more prescriptive than the 2018 final rule and that this increases the burden on transit agencies, particularly small and mid-sized RTAs who also must comply with their SSOA's Risk-Based Inspection programs. They expressed concern that FTA's safety rulemakings have forced transit agencies to constantly evolve their safety programs to accommodate increasingly burdensome requirements and that FTA should provide a grace period for transit agencies to evaluate and implement staffing and resources needed to comply with the new requirements.
This final rule is implementing requirements statutorily mandated by Congress, and FTA has attempted to implement the statutory requirements by imposing the least burden on transit agencies. To minimize the de-escalation training burden on all transit agencies subject to part 673, FTA has made de-escalation training freely available to all transit agencies via the FTA-sponsored Assault Awareness and Prevention for Transit Operators courses offered by the National Transit Institute.
FTA disagrees that a “grace period” for part 673 implementation is necessary and notes that to the extent the final rule incorporates Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requirements, those requirements have been in effect since November 15, 2021.
This section sets forth the applicability of the PTASP regulation. The regulation applies to any State, local governmental authority, and any other operator of a public transportation system that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53. FTA has deferred applicability to operators that only receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310 or 5311, or both 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311, and that do not operate a rail fixed guideway system.
This section explains that FTA is utilizing the principles and methods of SMS as the basis for this regulation and all other regulations and policies FTA has issued and will issue under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329. FTA's standards for SMS are flexible and scalable and may be tailored to the size and operating complexity of the transit operator.
This section sets forth the definitions of key terms used in the regulation. Most notably, readers should refer to “assault on a transit worker,” “safety event,” “safety performance target,” and “transit worker.”
This section establishes general PTASP requirements.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), this section requires each operator of public transportation subject to this rule to develop a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (ASP) consistent with this part. Section 673.11(a)(1) requires the ASP and subsequent updates be signed by the Accountable Executive. For large urbanized area providers, the Safety Committee must also approve the ASP, and any updates, followed by the transit agency's Board of Directors or equivalent entity. For all other transit agencies, the transit agency's Board of Directors or equivalent entity must approve the ASP.
Section 673.11(a)(2) requires the ASP to document the processes and activities related to SMS.
Section 673.11(a)(3) requires that ASPs must include annual safety performance targets based on the safety performance measures established under FTA's National Safety Plan. The ASP of a large urbanized area provider must also include safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program.
Section 673.11(a)(4) requires the ASP to address all applicable requirements and standards of FTA's Safety Program.
Section 673.11(a)(5) requires each transit agency to establish a process and timeline for reviewing annually its ASP.
Section 673.11(a)(6) requires the ASP of each RTA to include or incorporate by reference an emergency preparedness plan, any policies and procedures relating to rail transit workers on the roadway, and policies and procedures related to the State Safety Oversight Agency's risk-based inspection program.
Section 673.11(a)(7) requires the ASP of each large urbanized area provider to include a safety risk reduction program for transit operations to improve safety by reducing the number and rates of safety events, injuries, and assaults on transit workers. The safety risk reduction program must address the reduction and mitigation of vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles, and the reduction and mitigation of assaults on transit workers. The safety risk reduction program must also include the safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee. These targets must be based on a three-year rolling average of the data submitted by the large urbanized area provider to the National Transit Database (NTD); for all modes of public transportation; and based on the level of detail the large urbanized area provider is required to report to the NTD. The Safety Committee is not required to set a target for a performance measure until the large urbanized area provider has been required to report three years of data to the NTD corresponding to such performance measure.
Finally, the safety risk reduction program must include or incorporate by reference the safety risk mitigations identified and recommended by the Safety Committee as described in § 673.25(d)(5).
Section 673.11(b) provides that a transit agency may develop one ASP for all modes of transit service, or it may develop separate ASP for each mode of service not subject to safety regulation by another Federal entity.
Section 673.11(c) requires each transit agency to maintain its ASP in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of this Part.
Section 673.11(d) requires a State to draft and certify an ASP for a small public transportation provider that is located in that State. FTA notes a small public transportation provider may also be a large urbanized area provider and thus required to have an ASP with the attendant provisions, such as a Safety Committee and safety risk reduction program.
Section 673.11(e) exempts agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) or rail fixed guideway public transportation service regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) from the requirement to develop an ASP for those modes of service.
This section sets forth certification requirements. Section 673.13(a) lays out the requirement that a State's initial PTASP certification for a small transportation provider, or direct recipient's certification, must occur by the start of operations. This section also requires SSOAs to review and approve the ASP developed by a rail fixed guideway public transportation system. Section 673.13(b) requires the certification on an annual basis and that direct recipients must certify compliance on behalf of any subrecipients.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B) and 5304(d)(2)(B), section 673.15(a) requires that each State and transit agency must make its safety performance targets available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to aid in the planning process. Section 673.15(b) requires, to the maximum extent practicable, a State or transit agency to coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the selection of State and MPO safety performance targets.
Subpart C, “Safety Committees and Cooperation with Frontline Transit Worker Representatives” incorporates Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requirements for Safety Committees and cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives.
Section 673.17 establishes requirements for transit agency cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives, as required by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In § 673.17(a), FTA incorporates the statutory requirement that a large urbanized area provider must establish a Safety Committee. Section 673.17(b) incorporates the statutory requirement that a transit agency that is not a large urbanized area provider must develop its ASP, and subsequent updates, in cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives, as required by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In this section, FTA also requires that such providers must include or incorporate by reference in the ASP a description of how frontline transit worker representatives cooperate in the development and update of the ASP.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires that transit agencies serving a large urbanized area establish a Safety Committee that meets certain requirements.
Section 673.19(a) incorporates the statutory requirement that the Safety Committee be convened by a joint-labor management process and provides that the Safety Committee be appropriately scaled to the size, scope, and complexity of the transit agency.
Section 673.19(b) incorporates the statutory requirement that the Safety Committee consist of an equal number of frontline transit worker representatives and management representatives. This section also requires that the Safety Committee include frontline transit worker representatives from major transit service functions to the extent practicable.
Section 673.19(b) also incorporates the statutory requirement that the frontline transit worker representatives on the Safety Committee be selected by a labor organization representing the plurality of the frontline workforce. If a transit agency's frontline transit workers are not represented by a labor organization, the transit agency must adopt a mechanism to ensure that frontline transit workers select frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee.
Section 673.19(c) requires each large urbanized area provider include or incorporate by reference in its ASP procedures about the composition, responsibilities, and operations of the Safety Committee. Of note are the requirements to include procedures related to how meeting agendas and notices will be developed and shared, and how meeting minutes will be recorded, maintained, and shared; the compensation policy for participation in Safety Committee meetings, procedures for reaching and recording decisions, and procedures for resolving disputes, such as the existing dispute resolution process at the agency.
Section 673.19(d) identifies statutorily required activities that the Safety Committee must take, including ASP review and approval, setting annual safety performance targets to support the safety risk reduction program, and support of SMS activities.
This section outlines the SMS elements that each transit agency must establish in its ASP. Each transit agency must establish processes and procedures which include the four main pillars of SMS: (1) Safety Management Policy; (2) Safety Risk Management; (3) Safety Assurance; and (4) Safety Promotion. Each transit agency's SMS must be appropriately scaled to the size and complexity of the system.
Section 673.23(a) requires the transit agency's Safety Management Policy to include a description of the transit agency's Safety Committee or approach to cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives, as applicable.
Section 673.23(b) directs each transit agency to establish and implement a process that allows transit workers to report safety concerns.
Section 673.23(c) requires that the Safety Management Policy be communicated throughout the transit agency's organization.
Section 673.23(d) requires the transit agency to establish the necessary authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities necessary to meet its safety objectives, particularly as they relate to the development and management of the transit agency's SMS. Section 673.23(d)(1) requires each transit agency to identify an Accountable Executive and describes their role. Under § 673.25(d)(1)(i), the Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider must implement all safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program that
Sections 673.23(d)(2)-(5) require each transit agency to designate a Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive, Safety Committee (for large urbanized area providers), identify transit agency leadership and executive management, and designate key staff.
Section 673.25(a) requires that each transit agency must develop and implement a Safety Risk Management (SRM) process for all elements of its system. The SRM process includes hazard identification, safety risk assessment, and safety risk mitigation.
Section 673.25(b) discusses hazard identification. Section 673.25(b)(1) requires a transit agency to establish processes to identify hazards and potential consequences. Section 673.25(b)(2) lists certain data that a transit agency must consider as a source for hazard identification, including data regarding exposure to infectious disease provided by the CDC or a State health authority.
Section 673.25(c) describes the requirements for safety risk assessments.
Section 673.25(d) discusses safety risk mitigation. Section 673.25(d)(1) requires a transit agency to establish methods or processes to identify safety risk mitigations necessary as a result of the transit agency's safety risk assessment. For large urbanized area providers, these methods or processes must address the role of the agency's Safety Committee.
Section 673.25(d)(2) requires transit agencies to consider guidance provided by an oversight authority, if applicable, and FTA as a source for safety risk mitigation as well as CDC or State health authority guidelines to prevent or control exposure to infectious diseases.
Sections 673.25(d)(3) and (d)(4) require each large urbanized area provider and its Safety Committee to consider specific safety risk mitigations related to vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles and assaults on transit workers when identifying safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program, including when addressing a missed safety risk reduction program safety performance target. Section 673.25(d)(3) requires consideration of operator visibility impairment mitigations for any type of transit vehicles, not just buses. Similarly, § 673.25(d)(4) requires consideration of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology in any type of transit vehicle and in transit facilities, not just buses.
Section 673.25(d)(5) requires a large urbanized area provider to include or incorporate by reference in its ASP, as required by § 673.11(a)(7)(iv), any safety risk mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment as part of the safety risk reduction program. This includes mitigations relating to vehicular and pedestrian safety events or assaults on transit workers.
Section 673.25(d)(6) provides that if the Safety Committee recommends a safety risk mitigation unrelated to the safety risk reduction program and the Accountable Executive decides not to implement the safety risk mitigation, the Accountable Executive is required to prepare a written statement explaining their decision. The Accountable Executive must submit and present this explanation to the Safety Committee and Board of Directors, or equivalent entity.
Section 673.27(a) requires transit agencies to develop and implement a safety assurance process.
Section 673.27(b) requires transit agencies to establish safety performance monitoring and measurement activities. This section requires that large urbanized area providers address the role of the Safety Committee. This ensures that the SMS of these transit agencies incorporates the Safety Committee's statutorily required responsibilities relating to safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Section 673.27(c) requires transit agencies to establish a process for identifying and addressing changes to the system or operating conditions.
Section 673.27(d) addresses the requirement of continuous improvement. This requirement applies to all transit agencies subject to part 673. Section 673.25(d)(1) requires that a transit agency must establish a process to assess its safety performance annually. This process must include identifying deficiencies in the transit agency's SMS and in the agency's safety performance against its safety performance targets, including safety performance targets required for all transit agencies at § 673.11(a)(3). For large urbanized area providers, the continuous improvement process must address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee and include the identification of deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against annual safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program. Additionally, this section requires that RTAs must address internal safety review requirements established by SSOAs as part of the continuous improvement element of Safety Assurance.
Sections 673.27(d)(2) through (d)(4) address continuous improvement requirements related to safety performance targets as part of a large urbanized area provider's safety risk reduction program. Section 673.27(d)(2) requires the large urbanized area provider to monitor safety performance against the annual safety targets. Section 673.27(d)(3) identifies the requirements for a large urbanized area provider that does not meet an annual safety performance target set by the Safety Committee for the safety risk reduction program. Specifically, the transit agency must: (1) assess the associated safety risk; (2) mitigate associated safety risk using the safety risk mitigation process under § 673.25(d) and include those mitigations in the plan described in § 673.27(d)(4); and (3) allocate its safety set-aside in the following fiscal year to safety related projects that are reasonably likely to assist in meeting the safety performance target.
Section 673.27(d)(4) requires a transit agency to develop and carry out, under the direction of the Accountable Executive, a plan to address any deficiencies identified through the safety performance assessment.
This section requires each transit agency to establish competencies and training for all agency employees directly responsible for safety, and to establish and maintain the means for communicating safety performance and SMS information. Section 673.29(a) requires transit agencies to include de-escalation and safety concern identification and reporting training in their comprehensive safety training program. This requirement applies to all agencies, not just large urbanized area providers.
This section also incorporates the statutory requirement that large urbanized area providers must include maintenance workers in their training programs.
Section 673.29(b) requires transit agencies to integrate the results of cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives and joint labor-management Safety Committee activities
This section requires each transit agency to keep records of its documents that are developed in accordance with this part. FTA expects a transit agency to maintain documents that set forth its ASP, including those related to the implementation of its SMS such as the results from SMS processes and activities. For the purpose of reviews, investigations, audits, or other purposes, this section requires each transit agency to make these documents available to FTA, SSOAs in the case of rail transit systems, States, and other Federal agencies as appropriate. A transit agency must maintain these documents for a minimum of three years.
Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of regulations, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits when possible, and to consider economic, environmental, and distributional effects. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review significant regulatory actions, including regulations with annual economic effects of $200 million or more. OMB has determined the final rule is significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and has reviewed the rule under that order.
The NPRM analysis assessed the benefits and costs of self-enacting statutory requirements as well as discretionary provisions. The analysis for the final rule clarifies which provisions are discretionary and assesses their benefits and costs separately, as described in “Baseline.”
In addition, as described in “II.N. Regulatory Impact Analysis,” commenters on the NPRM requested that FTA reevaluate the staff and labor-hour assumptions it used to estimate costs for regulated entities to meet the requirements of the rule. After reviewing the assumptions, FTA made the following changes, which incorporate all the comments involving discretionary provisions of the rulemaking:
•
•
The final rule adds requirements for transit agencies subject to the existing regulation for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. The applicable agencies include all RTAs and all transit agencies receiving section 5307 funding.
Most provisions implement self-enacting statutory amendments made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 49 U.S.C. 5329. Agencies in large urbanized areas must incorporate de-escalation training into their safety training programs and incorporate guidelines for infectious disease exposure into their safety management system processes. Agencies serving urbanized areas with 200,000 or more people must establish safety committees, safety risk reduction programs with safety performance targets, and include maintenance workers in their safety training programs. The agencies must allocate at least 0.75 percent of their section 5307 funding to eligible safety projects. If an agency does not meet a safety performance target established under its safety risk reduction program, it will need to allocate its set-aside funding to projects that are reasonably likely to assist the agency in meeting the target. Agencies serving urbanized areas with fewer than 200,000 people must develop their agency safety plans in cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives.
The final rule also includes discretionary requirements. The rule extends the de-escalation training requirement to all transit agencies subject to part 673. In addition, small public transportation providers must establish continuous improvement processes to assess safety performance; previous regulation required transit agencies to establish continuous improvement processes but exempted small public transportation providers.
The rule implements self-enacting statutory requirements as well as discretionary elements. Circular A-4 (p. 12) notes that, in such cases, the analysis can use a with-statute baseline, focusing on the discretionary elements of the rule and potential alternatives. Table 2 outlines the statutory and discretionary elements of the final rule.
The requirements for de-escalation training and continuous improvement processes are predicted to reduce the risk of fatalities and injuries for transit workers, passengers, drivers, and pedestrians if transit agencies adopt safety risk mitigations that they would not have adopted otherwise. Example mitigations include bus sensors and surveillance systems to detect objects and pedestrians, and bus operator barriers to protect drivers. At the same time, some mitigations, like de-escalation training for transit operators, have already been widely adopted. While FTA expects that providers will be more likely to adopt safety risk mitigations after implementing continuous improvement processes, it does not have information to quantify or monetize potential benefits.
All transit agencies subject to part 673 will incur costs to meet the new requirement for de-escalation training, and small public transportation providers will incur costs to meet the new requirement for continuous improvement processes. FTA determined that the requirements would affect 572 transit agencies (299 providers in large UZAs; 273 providers in small UZAs) and 62 rail transit authorities (58 in large UZAs; 4 in small UZAs), as well as 3 large agencies in small UZAs. While FTA will incur costs to notify agencies, update technical assistance resources, and conduct training, the expected costs are minimal.
To estimate the value of staff time spent on the requirements, FTA used occupational wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of May 2021 (Table 3).
Table 4 outlines the estimated staff and labor hours for transit providers and rail transit agencies in small UZAs (273 small agencies; 3 large agencies; 4 rail transit authorities) to engage in de-escalation training and track employee training activities. Almost all agencies established programs after the Transportation Security Administration issued a security directive in January 2021 requiring mask use on public transportation.
The training and tracking have estimated first-year costs of $94,000 in the first year and annual costs of $55,000 in later years (Table 5).
Table 5 outlines the estimated staff and labor hours for small transit providers to maintain and establish continuous improvement processes. The hours include time to update the Agency Safety Plan to reflect new processes and to complete an annual assessment of safety performance.
The continuous improvement processes have estimated first-year costs of $244,000 in the first year and annual costs of $626,000 in later years (Table 6).
The requirements for de-escalation training and continuous improvement processes have total estimated costs of $339,000 (2021 dollars) in the first year and annual costs of $680,000 in later years (Table 7).
Table 8 summarizes the economic effects of the final rule. Over the ten-year analysis period, the rule has estimated costs of $6.5 million in 2021 dollars. On an annualized basis (discounted to 2023), the rule has estimated costs of $642,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $635,000 at 7 percent. To quantify benefits and assess net benefits, FTA would need information on the specific safety interventions transit agencies would adopt to address the requirements
While most requirements in the final rule are statutorily mandated, the rule includes two discretionary elements: de-escalation training for all transit agencies subject to part 673; and continuous improvement for small public transportation providers. In developing the rule, FTA considered whether to adopt the statutorily mandated requirements without modification. Because the rule uses a with-statute baseline for analysis, the rule would not have incremental costs or benefits under this regulatory alternative.
For de-escalation training, FTA considered data reported to the NTD on assaults on transit workers and found that these assaults occur on transit systems that serve large urbanized areas as well as those that serve small urbanized areas. Preliminary NTD data show that agencies serving small urbanized areas reported more than 300 assaults on transit workers from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023. FTA expects the number to increase after 2023 data are finalized and annual submissions from hundreds of smaller agencies are added. For this reason, FTA believes that requiring de-escalation training for operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety at all transit agencies subject to part 673 is appropriate and necessary to enhance safety for all transit workers and users of transportation, not just those in large urbanized areas. To minimize the de-escalation training burden on all transit agencies subject to part 673, FTA has made de-escalation training freely available to all transit agencies via the FTA-sponsored Assault Awareness and Prevention for Transit Operators courses offered by the National Transit Institute.
For continuous improvement, FTA believes that requiring the processes for small public transportation providers eliminates possible inconsistencies in enforcement among small public transportation providers: some small public transportation providers operate in large urbanized areas and are therefore subject to statutory requirements for continuous improvement. In addition, small public transportation providers are already required to set safety performance targets based on the safety performance measures established in the National Safety Plan. Based on the experience that the providers have gained by operating SMS and carrying out required safety performance measurement activities, FTA expects that the providers will be able to formalize their continuous improvement activities and document them in their ASP.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Most provisions in the final rule implement self-enacting statutory amendments made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 49 U.S.C. 5329, although some provisions are discretionary. The provisions include extending the de-escalation training requirement to all transit agencies subject to part 673, as well as requiring small public transportation providers to establish continuous improvement processes.
Under the Act, local governments and other public-sector organizations qualify
FTA has determined that this rule does not impose unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Additionally, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal Transit Act permits this type of flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and FTA determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. FTA also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1) Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This rule qualifies for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction). FTA has evaluated whether the rule will involve unusual or extraordinary circumstances and has determined that it will not.
FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. FTA does not believe this rule affects a taking of private property or otherwise has taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies that this action will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety
FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FTA has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All) (Apr. 21, 2023) (which builds upon Executive Order 12898) and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10, 2012)
FTA has evaluated this action under its environmental justice policies and FTA has determined that this action will not cause disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on communities with EJ concerns.
A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the Unified Agenda.
Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 5329, 5334; 49 CFR 1.91.
(a) This part applies to any State, local governmental authority, and any other operator of a public transportation system that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
(b) This part does not apply to an operator of a public transportation system that only receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311 unless it operates a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted the principles and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. FTA will follow the principles and methods of SMS in its development of rules, regulations, policies, guidance, best practices, and technical assistance administered under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329. This part sets standards for the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, which will be responsive to FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program, and reflect the specific safety objectives, standards, and priorities of each transit agency. Each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan will incorporate SMS principles and methods tailored to the size, complexity, and scope of the public transportation system and the environment in which it operates.
As used in this part:
(1) Intercity passenger rail transportation provided by the entity described in 49 U.S.C. chapter 243 (or a successor to such entity);
(2) Intercity bus service;
(3) Charter bus service;
(4) School bus service;
(5) Sightseeing service;
(6) Courtesy shuttle service for patrons of one or more specific establishments; or
(7) Intra-terminal or intra-facility shuttle services.
(a) A transit agency or State must establish a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that meets the requirements of this part and, at a minimum, consists of the following elements:
(1) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and subsequent updates, must be signed by the Accountable Executive and approved by—
(i) For a large urbanized area provider, the Safety Committee established pursuant to § 673.19, followed by the transit agency's Board of Directors or an equivalent entity; or
(ii) For all other transit agencies, the transit agency's Board of Directors or an equivalent entity.
(2) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must document the processes and activities related to Safety Management System (SMS) implementation, as required under subpart D of this part.
(3) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include annual safety performance targets based on the safety performance measures established under the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. Safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program are only required for large urbanized area providers.
(4) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must address all applicable requirements and standards as set forth in FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program and the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. Compliance with the minimum safety performance standards authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C) is not required until standards have been established through the public notice and comment process.
(5) Each transit agency must establish a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
(6) A rail transit agency must include or incorporate by reference in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan:
(i) An emergency preparedness and response plan or procedures that addresses, at a minimum, the assignment of transit worker responsibilities during an emergency; and coordination with Federal, State, regional, and local officials with roles and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response in the transit agency's service area;
(ii) Any policies and procedures regarding rail transit workers on the roadway the rail transit agency has issued; and
(iii) The transit agency's policies and procedures developed in consultation with the State Safety Oversight Agency to provide access and required data for the State Safety Oversight Agency's risk-based inspection program.
(7) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan of each large urbanized area provider must include a safety risk reduction program for transit operations to improve safety performance by reducing the number and rates of safety events, injuries, and assaults on transit workers. The safety risk reduction program must, at a minimum:
(i) Address the reduction and mitigation of vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles that includes safety risk mitigations consistent with § 673.25(d)(3);
(ii) Address the reduction and mitigation of assaults on transit workers that includes safety risk mitigations consistent with § 673.25(d)(4);
(iii) Include the safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee pursuant to § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program performance measures established in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. These targets must be set—
(A) Based on a three-year rolling average of the data submitted by the large urbanized area provider to the National Transit Database (NTD);
(B) For all modes of public transportation; and
(C) Based on the level of detail the large urbanized area provider is required to report to the NTD. The Safety Committee is not required to set a target for a performance measure until the large urbanized area provider has been required to report three years of data to the NTD corresponding to such performance measure.
(iv) Include or incorporate by reference the safety risk mitigations identified and recommended by the Safety Committee as described in § 673.25(d)(5).
(b) A transit agency may develop one Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for all modes of service or may develop a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for each mode of service not subject to safety regulation by another Federal entity.
(c) A transit agency must maintain its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements in subpart E of this part.
(d) A State must draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of any small public transportation provider that is located in that State. A State is not required to draft a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a small public transportation provider if that transit agency notifies the State that it will draft its own plan. In each instance, the transit agency must carry out the plan. If a State drafts and certifies a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of a transit agency, and the transit agency later opts to draft and certify its own Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, then the transit agency must notify the State. The transit agency has one year from the date of the notification to draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that is compliant with this part. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan drafted by the State will remain in effect until the transit agency drafts its own Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
(e) Agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) or rail fixed guideway public transportation service regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are not required to develop Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for those modes of service.
(a) Each direct recipient, or State as authorized in § 673.11(d), must certify that it has established a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan meeting the requirements of this part by the start of operations. A direct recipient must certify that it and all applicable subrecipients are in compliance with the requirements of this part. A State Safety Oversight Agency must review and approve a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan developed by a rail fixed guideway public transportation system, as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and its implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 674.
(b) On an annual basis, a direct recipient or State must certify its compliance with this part. A direct recipient must certify that it and all applicable subrecipients are in compliance with the requirements of this part.
(a) A State or transit agency must make its safety performance targets available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to aid in the planning process.
(b) To the maximum extent practicable, a State or transit agency must coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the selection of State and MPO safety performance targets.
(a) Each large urbanized area provider must establish a Safety Committee that meets the requirements of § 673.19.
(b) Each transit agency that is not a large urbanized area provider must:
(1) Develop its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and subsequent updates, in cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives; and
(2) Include or incorporate by reference in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan a description of how frontline transit worker representatives cooperate in the development and update of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
(a)
(1) Appropriately scaled to the size, scope, and complexity of the transit agency; and
(2) Convened by a joint labor-management process.
(b)
(1) The labor organization that represents the plurality of the transit agency's frontline transit workers must select frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee.
(2) If the transit agency's frontline transit workers are not represented by a labor organization, the transit agency must adopt a mechanism for frontline transit workers to select frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee.
(c)
(1) The organizational structure, size, and composition of the Safety Committee and how it will be chaired;
(2) How meeting agendas and notices will be developed and shared, and how meeting minutes will be recorded and maintained;
(3) Any required training for Safety Committee members related to the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and the processes, activities, and tools used to support the transit agency's SMS;
(4) The compensation policy established by the agency for participation in Safety Committee meetings;
(5) How the Safety Committee will access technical experts, including other transit workers, to serve in an advisory capacity as needed; transit agency information, resources, and tools; and submissions to the transit worker safety reporting program to support its deliberations;
(6) How the Safety Committee will reach and record decisions;
(7) How the Safety Committee will coordinate and communicate with the transit agency's Board of Directors, or equivalent entity, and the Accountable Executive;
(8) How the Safety Committee will manage disputes to ensure it carries out its operations. The Safety Committee may use the dispute resolution or arbitration process from the transit agency's Collective Bargaining Agreement, or a different process that the Safety Committee develops and agrees upon, but the Accountable Executive may not be designated to resolve any disputes within the Safety Committee; and
(9) How the Safety Committee will carry out its responsibilities identified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d)
(1) Review and approve the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and any updates as required at § 673.11(a)(1)(i);
(2) Set annual safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program as required at § 673.11(a)(7)(iii); and
(3) Support operation of the transit agency's SMS by:
(i) Identifying and recommending safety risk mitigations necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of
(ii) Identifying safety risk mitigations that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended, including safety risk mitigations associated with any instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety performance target in the safety risk reduction program; and
(iii) Identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous improvement as required at § 673.27(d), including any instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety performance target in the safety risk reduction program.
Each transit agency must establish and implement a Safety Management System under this part. A transit agency Safety Management System must be appropriately scaled to the size, scope and complexity of the transit agency and include the following elements:
(a) Safety Management Policy as described in § 673.23;
(b) Safety Risk Management as described in § 673.25;
(c) Safety Assurance as described in § 673.27; and
(d) Safety Promotion as described in § 673.29.
(a) A transit agency must establish its organizational accountabilities and responsibilities and have a written statement of Safety Management Policy that includes the transit agency's safety objectives and a description of the transit agency's Safety Committee or approach to cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives.
(b) A transit agency must establish and implement a process that allows transit workers to report safety concerns, including assaults on transit workers, near-misses, and unsafe acts and conditions to senior management, includes protections for transit workers who report, and includes a description of transit worker behaviors that may result in disciplinary action.
(c) The Safety Management Policy must be communicated throughout the transit agency's organization.
(d) The transit agency must establish the necessary authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities for the management of safety amongst the following individuals or groups within its organization, as they relate to the development and management of the transit agency's SMS:
(1)
(i) The Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider must implement safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program that are included in the Agency Safety Plan under § 673.11(a)(7)(iv).
(ii) The Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee, consistent with requirements in §§ 673.19(d) and 673.25(d)(6).
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(2) A transit agency must consider, as a source for hazard identification:
(i) Data and information provided by an oversight authority, including but not limited to FTA, the State, or as applicable, the State Safety Oversight Agency having jurisdiction;
(ii) Data and information regarding exposure to infectious disease provided by the CDC or a State health authority; and
(iii) Safety concerns identified through Safety Assurance activities carried out under § 673.27.
(c)
(2) A safety risk assessment includes an assessment of the likelihood and severity of the potential consequences of identified hazards, taking into account existing safety risk mitigations, to determine if safety risk mitigation is necessary and to inform prioritization of safety risk mitigations.
(d)
(2) A transit agency must consider, as a source for safety risk mitigation:
(i) Guidance provided by an oversight authority, if applicable, and FTA; and
(ii) Guidelines to prevent or control exposure to infectious diseases provided by the CDC or a State health authority.
(3) When identifying safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program related to vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles, including to address a missed safety performance target set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2), each large urbanized area
(4) When identifying safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program related to assaults on transit workers, including to address a missed safety performance target set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2), each large urbanized area provider and its Safety Committee must consider deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on transit vehicles and in transit facilities. Assault mitigation infrastructure and technology includes barriers to restrict the unwanted entry of individuals and objects into the workstations of bus operators.
(5) When a large urbanized area provider's Safety Committee, as part of the transit agency's safety risk reduction program, identifies and recommends under § 673.19(c)(6) safety risk mitigations, including mitigations relating to vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles or assaults on transit workers, based on a safety risk assessment conducted under § 673.25(c), the transit agency must include or incorporate by reference these safety risk mitigations in its ASP pursuant to § 673.11(a)(7)(iv).
(6) When a large urbanized area provider's Safety Committee recommends a safety risk mitigation unrelated to the safety risk reduction program, and the Accountable Executive decides not to implement the safety risk mitigation, the Accountable Executive must prepare a written statement explaining their decision, pursuant to recordkeeping requirements at § 673.31. The Accountable Executive must submit and present this explanation to the transit agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors or equivalent entity.
(a)
(b)
(1) Monitor its system for compliance with, and sufficiency of, the transit agency's procedures for operations and maintenance;
(2) Monitor its operations to identify any safety risk mitigations that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended. For large urbanized area providers, these activities must address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee;
(3) Conduct investigations of safety events to identify causal factors; and
(4) Monitor information reported through any internal safety reporting programs.
(c)
(2) If a transit agency determines that a change may impact its safety performance, then the transit agency must evaluate the proposed change through its Safety Risk Management process.
(d)
(i) This process must include the identification of deficiencies in the transit agency's SMS and deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against safety performance targets required in § 673.11(a)(3).
(ii) For large urbanized area providers, this process must also address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee, and include the identification of deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against annual safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program required in § 673.11(a)(7).
(iii) Rail transit agencies must also address any specific internal safety review requirements established by their State Safety Oversight Agency.
(2) A large urbanized area provider must monitor safety performance against annual safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program in § 673.11(a)(7).
(3) A large urbanized area provider that does not meet an established annual safety performance target set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program in § 673.11(a)(7) must:
(i) Assess associated safety risk, using the methods or processes established under § 673.25(c);
(ii) Mitigate associated safety risk based on the results of a safety risk assessment using the methods or processes established under § 673.25(d). The transit agency must include these mitigations in the plan described at § 673.27(d)(4) and in the Agency Safety Plan as described in § 673.25(d)(5); and
(iii) Allocate its safety set-aside in the following fiscal year to safety-related projects eligible under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that are reasonably likely to assist the transit agency in meeting the safety performance target in the future.
(4) A transit agency must develop and carry out, under the direction of the Accountable Executive, a plan to address any deficiencies identified through the safety performance assessment as described in this section.
(a)
(2) Large urbanized area providers must include maintenance transit workers in the safety training program.
(b)
At all times, a transit agency must maintain documents that set forth its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, including those related to the implementation of its SMS, and results