Title: Control and Eradication of African Swine Fever; Conditions for Payment of Indemnity Claims.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0491.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized to protect the health of the livestock, poultry, and aquaculture populations in the United States by preventing the introduction and interstate spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock, poultry, and aquaculture, and for eradicating such diseases and pests from the United States, when feasible. Within the USDA, this authority and mission is delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Part of the mission of the Veterinary Services (VS) business unit of APHIS is preventing foreign animal disease outbreaks in the United States, and monitoring, controlling, and eliminating a disease outbreak should one occur. In the past several years, there have been significant worldwide outbreaks of African swine fever (ASF). ASF is a highly contagious and deadly viral disease affecting both domestic and feral (wild) pigs. Herd mortality can reach 100 percent and animals contracting the disease can die in as little as a week, necessitating a rapid response. The disease is also highly resistant to the environment, meaning it can easily be spread by being on clothes, shoes, wheels, or other materials, or in pork products. If ASF entered the United States, it could halt U.S. pork exports, as trading partners would not accept products from a country with ASF; cut pork and hog prices by up to 50 percent; and cause widespread disruptions in hog and pork production.

The disease has not been detected in the United States; however, USDA is committed to working with State and industry partners to keep the virus out of the country. In the event of an ASF detection, USDA will declare an extraordinary emergency and establish an animal movement standstill to coordinate a national control and eradication approach. USDA will work with States and industry to depopulate infected premises, compensate affected owners, and institute herd plans.

To accomplish this, APHIS will implement various information collection activities related to an outbreak such as processing appraisal and indemnity requests and appraisal and indemnity claims, assisting with preparing worksheets for calculating proceeds from animals or materials sold for slaughter, approving domestic herd plans and financial plans, and administering an ASF response epidemiology questionnaire.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.882 hours per response.

Respondents: Agricultural producers, animal scientists and technicians, agricultural inspectors, and State animal health officials.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 40,050.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 13.

Estimated annual number of responses: 519,950.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 2,538,300 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

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 Pacific Northwest Region Recreation RAC can be found by visiting the committee website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r6/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

The Pacific Northwest Region Recreation RAC will be comprised of 11 members approved by the Secretary of Agriculture where each member will serve a two or three-year term. Memberships shall include representation from the following interest areas:

1. Five persons who represent:

a. Winter motorized recreation such as snowmobiling;

b. Winter non-motorized recreation such cross-country skiing or snowshoeing;

c. Summer motorized recreation such as motorcycling, boating, and off-highway vehicle driving;

d. Summer non-motorized recreation such as hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, canoeing, and rafting; and

e. Hunting and fishing.

2. Three persons who represent:

a. Motorized outfitters and guides;

b. Non-motorized outfitters and guides; and

c. Local environmental groups.

3. Three persons who represent:

a. State tourism official representing the State;

b. A representative of affected Indian tribes; and

c. A representative of affected local government interests.

The appointment of members to the Pacific Northwest 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; https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ad-755.pdf ). Nominations should be typed and include the following information:

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 into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

The OMB regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for extension.

Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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 may be submitted electronically by the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov/ . In the “Search for dockets and documents on agency actions” box enter the Docket No. RBS-24-BUSINESS-0009 and click the “Search” button. From the search results, click on or locate the document title: “Notice of Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection” and select the “Comment” button. Before inputting comments, commenters may review the “Commenter's Checklist” (optional). To submit a comment: Insert comments under the “Comment” title, click “Browse” to attach files (if available), input email address, select box to opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking (optional), select the box “I'm not a robot,” and then select “Submit Comment.” Information on using Regulations.gov , including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “FAQ” link. All comments will be available for public inspection online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( www.regulations.gov ).

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Data furnished by the applicants will be used to determine eligibility for program benefits. Furnishing the data is voluntary; however, failure to provide data could result in program benefits being withheld or denied.

Title: Rural Energy for America (REAP) program.

OMB Control Number: 0570-0067.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection under 7 CFR part 4280, subpart B.

Abstract: The primary purpose of REAP is to provide guaranteed loan financing and grant funding to agricultural producers and rural small businesses for renewable energy systems (RES) or to make energy efficiency improvements (EEI). RES and EEI projects will be scored and awarded in accordance with 7 CFR 4280.122 through 123. The REAP program also offers grant funding to assist agricultural producers and rural small businesses to conduct energy audits (EA) and provide recommendations and information on renewable energy development assistance (REDA). EA and REDA projects will be scored and awarded in accordance with 7 CFR 4280.155 through 156.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.21 hours per response.

Respondents: Nonprofit corporations and institutions of higher education.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,276.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 23.12.

Estimated Number of Responses: 98,866.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 218,364 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Katherine Anne Mathis, RD Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, Telephone: 202-713-7565, email: Katherine.mathis@usda.gov .

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Commerce regulations provide that it will publish in the Federal Register a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. 1 Our most recent notification of scope rulings was published on December 13, 2023. 2 This current notice covers all scope rulings made by Enforcement and Compliance between October 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023.

Requestor: FCC Metals LLC. Finished aluminum coil for use in roofing products is covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from Bahrain because the merchandise produced and exported from Bahrain and further processed in Jordan entered the United States as in-scope merchandise; November 8, 2023.

Requestor: GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Calcium glycinate is not covered by the scope of the antidumping or countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, because calcium glycinate is a precursor of glycine and calcium glycinate is not a type of glycine: October 11, 2023.

Requestor: SIGMA Corporation. An end module side cover and certain cable tray connection brackets are not covered by the scope of the antidumping or countervailing duty orders on certain cold-rolled steel flat products from India because they are not cold-rolled flat-rolled steel products but are components of modular battery storage assemblies: December 13, 2023.

Requestor: GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Calcium glycinate is not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan because calcium glycinate is a precursor of glycine and calcium glycinate is not a type of glycine: October 11, 2023.

Requestor: GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Calcium glycinate is not covered by the scope of the countervailing duty order on glycine from China because calcium glycinate is a precursor of glycine and calcium glycinate is not a type of glycine: October 11, 2023.

Requestor: Wagner Spray Tech Corporation. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation's part number 805-324 manifold is covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China because it does not satisfy the design and testing requirements that would qualify for the “finished heat sink” exception to the orders: October 17, 2023.

Requestor: Moe's Home Collection Inc. Certain case pieces of furniture are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China because they are physically consistent with certain types of wooden bedroom furniture, in some cases were suitable for storing clothes, and were advertised as bedroom furniture: November 22, 2023.

Requestor: Essential Ribbons, Inc. The twist tie component of twist ties attached with bows are covered by the orders. Commerce determined the twist tie component was within the scope of the orders based on an analysis under19 CFR 351.225(k)(3). First, Commerce examined the merchandise as a whole and found it had multiple components because it was described as having two pieces with different functions and the pieces were either not attached or attached by a single stitch. Then Commerce examined the twist tie component and found it was explicitly covered by the scope in both function and physical description. Finally, Commerce examined if the inclusion of the twist tie with the attachable bow resulted in an exclusion of the scope inquiry merchandise from the scope of the orders. Since there is no exclusion for a twist tie that is a component of merchandise that has a bow, Commerce found the twist tie was not excluded from the orders. The twist tie component of twist ties attached with bows is, therefore, covered by the scope of the orders; November 27, 2023.

Requestor: Imperium Cables, LLC. (Imperium). Imperium's Type SER and Type URD aluminum conductor cables that are manufactured in Korea by Pusan Cables & Engineering Co., Ltd., and incorporate aluminum wire cable that is produced in China by Hebei Huatong Wires and Cables Group Co., Ltd. (Hebei Huatong), are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, because the aluminum wire produced by Hebei Huatong is uninsulated and, therefore, does not meet the criterion of the scope. The scope of the orders provides that “at least one of the electrical conductors is insulated.” December 4, 2023.

Requestor: Chicago Dowel Company Inc. Small diameter wood dowels are covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China because they are made of wood, continuously shaped wood, and in the form of dowels: December 11, 2023.

Requestor: Component Technology International, Inc. Four types of collared studs ( i.e., part numbers 2003.1027CTI, 2012.0306, 1405307CTI, and 1448160CTI) are not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order because they are headed, not straight, and three of the four parts do not have a circular diameter. The scope excludes headed products and secondary sources support finding that these four types of certain collared studs are headed, and, thus, not covered. We issued the final decision on October 6, 2023.

Requestor: Component Technology International, Inc. Five types of collared studs ( i.e., part numbers AF020710, B34-6005, 5445362/CTI, 2003.2021, and HW100149) are not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order because they are headed, not straight, and do not have a circular diameter. The scope excludes headed products and secondary sources support finding that these five types of certain collared studs are headed, and, thus, not covered. We issued the final decision on November 17, 2023.

Requestor: GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Calcium glycinate is not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Thailand because calcium glycinate is a precursor of glycine and calcium glycinate is not a type of glycine: October 11, 2023.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries and scope/circumvention inquiry combinations made during the period October 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to CommerceCLU@trade.gov.

This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).

Pursuant to the FACA, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet on Thursday, June 20, 2024, from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. eastern time. The Judges Panel is composed of nine members, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, with a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. Members are selected for their familiarity with quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, nonprofits, health care providers, and educational institutions. The purpose of this meeting is to review the results of examiners' scoring of written applications. Panel members will vote on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants. The meeting is closed to the public in order to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed. Pursuant to 41 CFR § 102-3.150(a)(6), written comments may be submitted to the Judges Panel. Please contact Mrs. Robyn Decker by email at robyn.verner@nist.gov; Mailing Address: NIST c/o Robyn Decker 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1020 Gaithersburg, MD 20899; or 301-975-2361. Please provide her with your name, email, and phone number, and your written comment for the Judges Panel.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the Assistant General Counsel for Employment, Litigation, and Information, formally determined on May 24, 2024, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the meeting of the Judges Panel may be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) because the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and are privileged or confidential, and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because the meeting is likely to disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. The meeting, which involves examination of current Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award) applicant data from U.S. organizations and a discussion of these data as compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, will be closed to the public.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.

Publication of this notice on the NCWM's behalf is undertaken as a public service and does not itself constitute an endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the content of the notice. NIST participates in the NCWM as an NCWM member and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 272(b)(10) and (c)(4) and in accordance with Federal policy ( e.g., OMB Circular A-119 “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards”).

The NCWM is an organization of weights and measures officials of the states, counties, cities, and territories of the United States, and representatives from the private sector and federal agencies. These meetings bring together government officials and representatives of business, industry, trade associations, and consumer organizations on subjects related to the field of weights and measures technology, administration, and enforcement. NIST hosted the first meeting of the NCWM in 1905. Since then, the conference has provided a model of cooperation between Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector. NIST participates to encourage cooperation between federal agencies and the states in the development of legal metrology requirements. NIST also promotes uniformity in state laws, regulations, and testing procedures used in the regulatory control of commercial weighing and measuring devices, packaged goods, and for other trade and commerce issues.

The NCWM has established multiple committees, task groups, and other working bodies to address legal metrology issues of interest to, inter alia, regulatory officials, industry representatives, and consumers. Comments will be taken by the various NCWM committees on agenda items during the open hearing portions of the conference identified in the meeting schedule. At this stage, the items are proposals. The open hearing sessions are accessible to all registered attendees of the conference, including both NCWM members and non-members. The conference also includes committee work sessions in which the committees may, inter alia, accept comments, withdraw or carry over agenda items that need additional maturation, and develop recommendations for the agenda items for consideration and possible adoption during the voting session of the meeting.

This notice is intended to make interested parties aware of significant agenda items and alert them to the committees' intentions to share reports on the status of each at the 2024 NCWM Annual Meeting. This notice is also presented to invite the participation of manufacturers, experts, consumers, users, and others who may be interested in these efforts.

Comments will be taken on these and other recommendations to amend NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices” (NIST Handbook 44 or NIST HB 44), NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the areas of Legal Metrology and Fuel Quality” (NIST Handbook 130 or NIST HB 130), and NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods” (NIST Handbook 133 or NIST HB 133).

These NIST Handbooks are regularly adopted by reference or through the administrative procedures of all the states. At this stage these agenda items are only proposals to amend the handbooks.

The NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T Committee) will consider proposed amendments to NIST HB 44, including those identified below. These items address weighing and measuring devices used in commercial applications, that is, devices used to buy from or sell to the public or used to determine the quantity of products or the cost of services based on a weight or measurement. For a detailed technical review of the NCWM S&T Committee agenda items, see the 2024 NIST OWM Analysis at 2024 NIST OWM Annual Analysis.

SCL-23.3. Verification Scale Division e: Multiple Sections.

The S&T Committee has assigned a Voting status to a proposal submitted by the NCWM Verification Scale Division e Task Group that is intended to update NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.20 Scales to clarify how error is determined in relation to the verification scale division (e) and the scale division (d), clarify which is the proper reference; the verification scale division (e) or the scale division (d) throughout this section, ensure proper selection of a scale in reference to the verification scale division (e) and the scale division (d), and clarify the relationship between the verification scale division (e) and the scale division (d).

WIM-23.1. Add Section 2.26. Weigh-in-Motion Systems Used for Vehicle Direct Enforcement.

The S&T Committee will consider a proposal to add Section 2.26. Weigh-in-Motion Systems Used for Vehicle Direct Enforcement. This also includes (but is not limited to): (1) specifications that direct how a device must be designed. (S); (2) the addition of test procedures specific to devices designed to enforce road weight limit restrictions for vehicles in the test procedures (N) section addressing test speeds, dynamic test loads, and vehicle configurations; (3) the designation of tolerances (T) to be applied to WIM scales used for enforcement purposes; and (4) the addition of selection, installation, maintenance, and violation parameters in the user requirements (UR) for the enforcement of road weight limit restrictions for vehicles based on axle, axle group, and gross vehicle weights. The proposal has been through several revisions since the release of the 2023 NCWM Publication 15. During the 2024 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee updated the item based on revised language proposed by the submitter and input received during the meeting. The item was assigned a Voting status.

EVF-24.2—S.2.7. Indication of Delivery, N.3.2. Accuracy Testing., and T.2.1. EVSE Load Test Tolerances.

This item proposes to amend the exemption date applicable to DC EV charging equipment from 2028 to 2025 for those paragraphs that include the exemption. Exempting DC systems currently placed into service up through December 31, 2024, from displaying specific sales information and accuracy testing and tolerances. Whereas all other AC and DC EVSE in service must meet all HB 44 display and accuracy requirements and be held to minimum test procedures.

EVF-23.4—S.5.2. EVSE Identification and Marking Requirements, S.5.3. Abbreviations and Symbols, and N.3. Test of an EVSE System. This item proposes to expand EVSE test procedures and amend EVSE marking requirements which are used to identify that the system is in the proper state for testing.

EVF-23.6—S.5.2. EVSE Identification and Marking Requirements., and T.2. Accuracy Test Tolerances. This item proposes to create a new accuracy class for DC EV charging equipment where a ±5% performance tolerance would apply until 2034. This would permit DC systems currently in use and placed into service up through December 31, 2023, a wider accuracy tolerance when marked with the designation “Accuracy Class 5” while other DC systems operate and meet the current ±2% tolerance.

OTH-16.1—Non-Utility Electricity-Measuring Systems (NUEMS)—Tentative Code. This item proposes to create a new NIST HB 44 code section that would apply to electricity meters that are not under the authority of municipal and public utilities. If adopted the code would have a tentative designation which means it would have a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced.

The NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R Committee) will consider proposed amendments to NIST HB 133, including those identified below. A detailed technical review of the L&R Committee agenda items will be made available prior to the 2024 NCWM Annual Meeting in the 2024 NIST OWM Annual Analysis.

NET-24.1. Section 3.11. Ice Cream Novelties. The L&R Committee will consider a proposal designated as “Voting” to modify NIST HB 133, Section 3.11. Ice Cream Novelties. This is a test procedure that will provide updated technical guidance on the preparation and maintenance of ice water at the required temperature to test ice cream novelties such as ice cream bars, ice cream sandwiches, or cones.

NET-24.2. Section 4.9. Procedure for Checking the Contents of Specific Agriculture Seed Packages Labeled by Count and Appendix D. AOSA Rules for Testing Seeds. The L&R Committee will consider a proposal designated as “Voting” to align NIST HB 133, Section 4.9. Procedure for Checking the Contents of Specific Agriculture Seed Packages Labeled by Count and Appendix D. AOSA Rules for Testing Seeds with recent changes to the Association of Official Seed Analyst (AOSA) Rules. This proposal would provide a standardized mechanical seed counter calibration procedure for all models of mechanical seed counters being used across the United States, to determine the number of seeds per pound and/or for the purpose of packaging seeds by count.

NET 22.1 Section 1.2.6. Deviations Caused by Moisture Loss or Gain and Section 2.3.8. Table 2-3 Moisture Allowances. The L&R Committee will consider a proposal that is designated as “Voting” to Section 1.2.6. Deviations Caused by Moisture Loss or Gain and Section 2.3.8. Table 2-3 Moisture Allowances. This proposal would provide for a 3% moisture allowance for packages of Cannabis plant material containing more than 0.3% total delta-9 THC (Cannabis, Marijuana, or Marihuana  1 ) or containing 0.3% less total delta-9 THC (hemp). Deviations from the net quantity of contents caused by the loss or gain of moisture from the package are permitted when they are caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that normally occur in good distribution practices and that unavoidably result in a change of weight or measure.

Multiple concurrent environmental challenges presently exist, driven by human activity. Environmental challenges include global warming, biodiversity loss, disease emergence and spread, topsoil loss, environmental contamination, altered biogeochemical cycling, and habitat range shifts. These challenges have documented economic impacts reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually and are highly relevant to business interests, due to the continued need for access to the natural resources and ecosystem services on which industrial profitability relies. Furthermore, many of these challenges present broader threats to society, including the potential for food shortages, pandemics, and extreme weather. NIST seeks to advance the science and artifact and documentary standards for the measurement of the physical, chemical, biological, and ecological parameters needed for understanding complex, natural systems undergoing short and long-term change. Such understanding will improve the forecasting of the rate and extent of change and aid the mitigation of such change if intervention is implemented.

Engagement of NIST, the environmental sensor industry, and the sensor user community is critical to ensure the adoption of effective standards to promote a competitive and resilient market and to enable optimal investment in tackling environmental challenges. The standards must include the development of best practices for measuring key parameters and methodologies for ensuring the accuracy of the measurements. Without effective standards, organizations wishing to invest in addressing environmental challenges will be unable to effectively direct resources. To address these needs, NIST is planning a gaps analysis workshop for the environmental measurement community, to learn more about current limitations in making measurements of the environment, including terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, coastal zones, agriculture, and managed and urban areas. This workshop will entail a community dialogue on needs related to new and improved sensors, standardized measurement methods, measurement testbeds, and artifact and documentary standards for ecosystem measurement.

The workshop aims to facilitate engagement among sensor manufacturers, calibration laboratories, standards organizations, academic researchers, Federal agencies, nonprofits, and regional and state agencies. NIST is seeking public comments on current gaps in the field of environmental measurement and on priorities for the upcoming workshop agenda. Sensors of interest for workshop discussion may include point and area sensors (including imaging systems) deployed in aquatic ( e.g., buoys, submersibles), subsurface, surface, air ( e.g., conventional aircraft, drones, and balloons), and space (small CubeSat-style satellites to large environmental satellites) environments. In addition to these proposed topics, NIST is soliciting public input on gaps in measurement capabilities for other physical, chemical, biological, and ecological parameters relevant to environmental monitoring, management, and hazard mitigation applications. Focal areas of particular interest may include environmental measurement testbeds, including gaps in current measurement capabilities at available testbeds, and discrepancies between sensor performance in laboratory versus field settings. Additionally, we solicit community input on current gaps and future needs related to standards development for new and emerging sensor technologies used to monitor aspects of environmental change, including the particularly difficult task of measuring extremely small annual changes in the environment over decadal time periods, a significant challenge for sensors and data analysis protocols given the large diurnal and seasonal changes in temperature, humidity, and precipitation seen in many environments of interest.

The above-listed agenda topics are not intended to limit the areas that may be addressed by respondents so long as they address a topic that would be useful in NIST's planning relative to our future work on supporting the environmental measurement community. When addressing the topics above, respondents may describe the practices of their organization or organizations with which they are familiar. Providing such information is optional and will not affect NIST's full consideration of the comment.

The primary purpose of the meeting is to address guidance received from the Pacific Council at their June 2024 meeting. The Workgroup may also discuss and continue to develop new or updated tools for SRFC management for Pacific Council consideration. Additional discussions may include, but are not limited to, future meetings, workload planning, and upcoming Council agenda items.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and State and Federal agencies.

The items of discussion during the Data scoping webinar are as follows:

Participants will discuss what data may be available for use in the assessment.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss and further develop interim management measures, or a management framework, intended to address the response of Klamath River fall Chinook to the dynamic nature of the Klamath River environment and the available habitat immediately following dam removal, and post-dam removal until the natural environment is stabilized and the salmon population is more predictable. Additional discussions may include, but are not limited to, future meetings, workload planning, and upcoming Council agenda.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Background

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 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

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 IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On January 3, 2024 we received a request from Petrogas for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities in Ferndale, Washington. Following NMFS' review of the application, Petrogas submitted a revised version on March 26, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 25, 2024. Petrogas has requested authorization of take by Level B harassment for harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion and harbor porpoise and, for harbor seal and harbor porpoise only, take by Level A harassment. Neither Petrogas nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Petrogas is proposing to remove the existing timber Pier that has served as a loading facility since 1965 and replace it with a new structure that meets current industry best practices. The activity includes vibratory removal of existing timber piles and installation of steel piles by both vibratory and impact driving. In-water construction would occur for 17 days, which would occur intermittently between August 1, 2024 and October 31, 2024. Take of marine mammals is anticipated to occur due to vibratory pile removal as well as impact and vibratory pile installation.

This IHA would be valid for 1 year from August 1, 2024 through July 31, 2025. Due to in-water work timing restrictions to protect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonids, all planned in-water construction is limited to a work window beginning August 1, 2024 and ending February 1, 2025. However, since the Strait of Georgia is a very large water body with a long fetch, calm in-water work conditions are typically only available from August to the end of October. Therefore, Petrogas expects that in-water construction work will occur from August 1, 2024 to October 31, 2024. Pile driving is anticipated to take up to 17 days to complete. Work may not occur on consecutive days due to weather and other project needs. Pile driving would be completed intermittently throughout daylight hours.

Petrogas maintains and operates a marine Pier on the southeastern shoreline of the Strait of Georgia in Ferndale, Washington as shown in figure 1. The Strait of Georgia encompasses the northern marine waters of the Salish Sea, with a long fetch that extends to the northwest between the Canadian mainland and Vancouver Island. The Pier is built on aquatic lands leased from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The shoreline and aquatic area surrounding the Pier is part of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve, a WDNR protected marine environment. The shore area is characterized by wave washed feeder bluffs where sediment transport creates both sandy and cobbled beaches and intertidal zones.

In-water construction activity is divided into three phases. The first phase consists of the installation of piles, dolphin platform and mooring system to replace the North Mooring Dolphin (NMD) deck and catwalk. NMD installation involves driving 7, 30-in, 150-foot (ft) steel piles via vibratory and impact driving, centered 25 ft (7.6 meters) to 50 ft (15.24 m) to the north of the old North Mooring Dolphin. Piles will be driven to approximately 100 ft (30.48 m) of penetration into the sea floor. Pile driving time is estimated to take 65 minutes per pile. The pile will be driven via vibratory driver for the majority of the distance (approximately 25 minutes), then will be driven and proofed via impact driver (approximately 40 minutes) to ensure the pile meets the structural load design criteria. Two more additional 30-in steel piles will be driven with the same methods for the catwalk supports but to approximately 80 ft (24.38 m) of penetration into the sea floor. Pile driving will take 5-7 days and pile driving time will not exceed 3 hours in any 24-hour period.

The next project phase is the removal of the old mooring dolphins. Note that Petrogas is proposing to install the new NMD before removing the old one in order to minimize facility downtime. Forty-seven existing 16-in creosote-treated timber piles will be removed using a vibratory driver, taking roughly 2 minutes per pile. If any existing piles cannot be removed in this manner, they will be cut below the mudline with an underwater chainsaw or cutting torch.

The final phase would be the removal of the alumina unloading conveyor system dolphins. These are dolphins #7, #11 and #15. Dolphin #7 is composed of 8 treated timber piles, while dolphins #11 and #15 are composed of 7 treated timber piles each. A total of 22 piles would be removed. If vibratory removal is not feasible, they would also be cut below the mudline with an underwater chainsaw or cutting torch. Note that NMFS has determined that use of an underwater chainsaw or cutting torch as described in the second and third phase is not expected to result in take and, therefore, will not be not discussed further.

A summary of the proposed pile removal and installation methods for the pier project is presented below in table 1. Note that there will be no more than a total of 3 hours combined of impact and vibratory driving per day.

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; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which exposure is expected for this activity 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 status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports ).

All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project area are included in table 2 of the IHA application. While the gray whale, minke whale, Dall's porpoise, and the Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stock of killer whale have been reported in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. The gray whale is uncommon in the area, but may pass through the Puget Sound during migration. Per the population analysis on gray whales from 1996-2015, from June 1 to November 30, there were only 6 days when sightings were recorded in the Northern Puget Sound. The Northern Puget Sound refers to a study range of the Puget Sound marine waters from Edmonds, WA to the Canadian border (Calambokidis, 2017). Additionally, gray whales would not be migrating when in-water work would most likely occur for this project ( i.e., August through October). Therefore, since the occurrence of the gray whale is low at any time of year, and no gray whales are expected to occur during the expected work period, take of this species is not expected. While the minke whale may be observed in the San Juan Islands and southern Puget Sound, reports of minke whales in the Southeastern Strait of Georgia are rare. The Dall's porpoise has historically been present in the Puget Sound, but their numbers have declined significantly and are now also considered to be rare (Evenson 2016, Jefferson et al., 2016, Jefferson 2024). Finally, while the Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stock of killer whale may occur infrequently in Washington, its primary range is located in British Columbia, Canada, and Southeast Alaska up through Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 1997, Ford et al., 2000), and no take of this stock is expected to occur.

Humpback whales are found in coastal waters of Washington as they migrate from feeding grounds in Alaska to California to winter breeding grounds in Mexico. Humpbacks used to be considered only rare visitors to Puget Sound. In 1976 and 1978, two sightings were reported in Puget Sound and one sighting was reported in 1986 (Osborne et al., 1988; Calambokidis and Steiger 1990; Calambokidis and Baird 1994). Humpback whale occurrence in Puget Sound has been steadily increasing since 2000, with some individuals remaining in the area through the winter (Calambokidis et al., 2018).

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 et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). Specifically, the three previous North Pacific humpback whale stocks (Central and Western North Pacific stocks and a CA/OR/WA stock) were replaced by five stocks, largely corresponding with the ESA-designated DPSs. These include Western North Pacific and Hawaii stocks and a Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock (which corresponds with the Central America DPS). The remaining two stocks, corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mexico-North Pacific stocks (Caretta et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). The former stock is expected to occur along the west coast from California to southern British Columbia, while the latter stock may occur across the Pacific, from northern British Columbia through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea region to Russia.

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 et al. (2021), the probability that whales encountered in Washington waters are from a given DPS are as follows: Hawaii, 69 percent; Mexico (CA-OR-WA), 25 percent; Central America, 6 percent.

Humpback whales, while relatively few in number, are regularly seen in the Puget Sound. They are most frequently found in the South Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan De Fuca, the Haro Strait and among the Canadian Gulf Islands. They are found in transit in the southern parts of the Strait of Georgia on occasion, but are not a common occurrence per the sightings archive of the Orca Network.

There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales recognized in the north Pacific: resident, transient, and offshore. The three ecotypes differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and genetically. Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW) exclusively prey upon fish, with a clear preference for salmon (Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al., 2010; Ford et al., 2016), while transient killer whales exclusively prey upon marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019). Less is known about offshore killer whales, but they are believed to consume primarily fish, including several species of shark (Dahlheim et al., 2008). The seasonal movements of transients are largely unpredictable, although there is a tendency to investigate harbor seal haulouts off Vancouver Island more frequently during the pupping season in August and September (Baird 1994; Ford 2014). Transient killer whales have been observed in central Puget Sound in all months (Orca Network 2021).

SRKWs are typically found in the Salish Sea spring, summer and fall, and are found along the west coast of the United States and British Columbia in the winter (NOAA, 2022). The J pod tends to stay closer to the Puget Sound even during winter. The orca pods travel about the Puget Sound swiftly and, though a rare occurrence, the pods may pass through in the project area. ESA summer core area critical habitat for SRKW has been designated in Puget Sound, which includes all U.S. marine waters in Whatcom County, WA, where Ferndale Pier is located (50 CFR 226; August 2, 2021).

Harbor porpoise occur along the U.S. west coast from southern California to the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2020). The Washington Inland Waters stock is found from Cape Flattery throughout Puget Sound and the Salish Sea region. In southern Puget Sound, harbor porpoise were common in the 1940s, but marine mammal surveys, stranding records since the early 1970s, and harbor porpoise surveys in the early 1990's indicated that harbor porpoise abundance had declined (Carretta et al., 2020). Annual winter aerial surveys conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from 1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing trend in harbor porpoise in Washington inland waters, including the return of harbor porpoise to Puget Sound (Carretta et al., 2020). Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, summer, and fall 2013-2015 in Puget Sound and Hood Canal documented substantial numbers of harbor porpoise in Puget Sound. Observed porpoise numbers were twice as high in spring as in fall or summer, indicating a seasonal shift in distribution.

Harbor porpoise reside in the Puget Sound year-round. Data from harbor porpoise sightings indicate that distribution is heterogeneous with some areas consistently suggesting higher densities of harbor porpoise. The British Columbia Cetacean Sightings Network (BCCSN) reports summer concentrations in areas that include the South-Central Strait of Georgia (Canadian side), Haro Strait, Boundary Pass and sites further north in British Columbia. Winter concentrations include the Port of San Juan, Haro Strait, Swanson Channel, and the central Strait of Georgia (in British Columbia) (Zier, 2015).

California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to the southern tip of Baja California. They breed on the offshore islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath and Perrin, 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island (Jefferson et al., 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath and Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney, 2005). Females and some juveniles tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al., 1990; Melin et al., 2008).

California sea lions regularly occur on rocks, buoys and other structures and is the most frequently sighted otariid found in Washington waters. Some 3,000 to 5,000 animals are estimated to move into Pacific Northwest waters of Washington and British Columbia during the fall (September) and remain until the late spring (May) when most return to breeding rookeries in California and Mexico (Jeffries et al., 2000). Peak counts of over 1,000 animals have been made in Puget Sound (Jeffries et al., 2000).

There are no known haulouts in close proximity to the proposed project area but California sea lions may be in the vicinity foraging as they move through the wider area. While California sea lions can be found throughout the Puget Sound, estimates place the number of California sea lions in the springtime at an average of 450 in the Puget Sound proper (Jefferson, et al., 2023). There are two documented haulouts in the southern Strait of Georgia, both along the western coast of the Strait of Georgia in British Columbia, Canada. The closest haulout is near Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the Gulf Islands, over 15 miles from the project site (LeValley, E., 2021).

Steller sea lions in the project area are expected to be from the Eastern U.S. stock. The Eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions is found along the coasts of southeast Alaska to northern California where they occur at rookeries and numerous haulout locations along the coastline (Jeffries et al., 2000; Scordino, 2006; NMFS, 2013).

The eastern DPS and MMPA stock is the only population of Steller's sea lions thought to occur in the project area. In Washington waters, numbers decline during the summer months, which correspond to the breeding season at Oregon and British Columbia rookeries (approximately late May to early June) and peak during the fall and winter month.

The majority of Steller sea lion population in Washington is found on the west coast but there are consistently used haulouts and breeding sites throughout the Puget Sound. These sites are typically rocky, gravel or sand beaches, ledges and reefs. There are two documented haulouts in the southern Strait of Georgia. The first is near Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the Gulf Islands in British Columbia, Canada, (west coast of the Strait of Georgia), approximately 15 miles from the project area. The second is on Sucia Island (LeValley, E. 2021), approximately 10 miles distant from the project area, at the southern end of the Strait of Georgia.

Harbor seals are the most common, widely distributed marine mammal found in Washington marine waters and are frequently observed in the nearshore marine environment. They occur year-round and breed in Washington. They are frequently found in saltwater bays, estuaries and inlets. Their preferred haulouts include intertidal and subtidal rocks, beaches, sandbars, rocky reefs, log booms and floats.

There are 3 delineated stocks in the Puget Sound. These stocks include the Hood Canal stock, the Northern Inland Waters stock and the Southern Puget Sound stock.

This project is only likely to affect the Northern Inland Waters Stock, which is the most wide-spread stock throughout the Puget Sound, from Cape Flattery, to the Strait of Georgia, to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (NOAA, 2022). Haulouts may be just a few individuals but may range beyond 500 individuals. Harbor seals generally live and feed in a limited range but may travel up to 400 miles for seasonal prey. The Strait of Georgia is a very large body of water with no haulouts in the immediate vicinity of the project. The closest documented haulouts are two different low population (>100 individuals) locations approximately 5 miles from the project site, one to the north and one to the south (Jeffries et al., 2000). To the southwest and west of the project location are 14 other haulouts dotted throughout a few of the small northern San Juan Islands (North of Orcas Island) within 10 miles of the project (Jeffries et al., 2000).

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 ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes ( i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3.

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013).

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.

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. 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 ( e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological ( e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound ( e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).

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 et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.

In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile removal. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds ( e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds ( e.g., aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007).

Two types of pile hammers would be used on this project: impact and vibratory. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson, et al., 2005).

The likely or possible impacts of activity proposed by Petrogas on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors include the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the Petrogas specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and behavioral effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007, 2021). Exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts (TS) and behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (TSs) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

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 threshold shift 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 ( e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure ( i.e., spectral content), the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum ( i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source ( e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) —NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible 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). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) —A temporary, reversible 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). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration ( i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis )) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound sources ( i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and table 5 in NMFS (2018).

Installing piles requires a combination of impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. For the project, these activities would not occur at the same time and there would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Behavioral harassment— Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. 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 ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005, Southall et al., 2021).

Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within exposures of an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012, Southall et al., 2021), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. For a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound, see Southall et al., 2007; Gomez et al., 2016; and Southall et al., 2021 reviews.

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 ( e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to differences in response in any given circumstance ( e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal.

Masking —Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural ( e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic ( e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is high ( e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. Ferndale Pier receives 150 tanker ships per year plus additional tugboats. Approximately 3,000 ships travel through the Strait of Georgia to visit Vancouver. Therefore, background sound levels in the project area are likely already elevated.

The proposed Petrogas construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-water SPLs and slightly decreasing water quality. Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater sound. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During pile driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify waters around the Pier where both fish and mammals may occur and could affect foraging success.

In-water pile driving and pile removal would also cause short-term effects on water quality due to increased turbidity. Local currents are anticipated to disburse suspended sediments produced by project activities at moderate to rapid rates depending on tidal stage. Petrogas would employ standard construction best management practices, thereby reducing any impacts. Considering the nature and duration of the effects, combined with the measures to reduce turbidity, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable.

Pile installation and removal may temporarily increase turbidity resulting from suspended sediments. Any increases would be temporary, localized, and minimal. Petrogas must comply with state water quality standards during these operations by limiting the extent of turbidity to the immediate project area. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-feet (ft) radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the project pile driving areas to experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds would likely be transiting the area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project site would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

Construction activities would produce continuous ( i.e., vibratory pile driving) and impulsive ( i.e., impact driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Sound pulses at received levels may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality.

Impacts on marine mammal prey ( i.e., fish or invertebrates) of the immediate area due to the acoustic disturbance are possible. The duration of fish or invertebrate avoidance or other disruption of behavioral patterns in this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. Further, significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat are available in the nearby waters.

The duration of the construction activities is relatively short, with pile driving and removal activities expected to take only 17 days. There will be no more than a total of 3 hours combined impact and vibratory driving per day and pile driving activities would be restricted to daylight hours. The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short timeframe for the project.

Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have the potential to adversely affect fish in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (on the order of 10 ft (3 meters (m)) or less) of construction activities. However, suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates any effects on fish are expected to be minor or negligible. In addition, best management practices would be in effect, which would limit the extent of turbidity to the immediate project area.

In summary, given the relatively short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving and events and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.

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 stressors ( i.e., pile driving) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high frequency species (harbor porpoise) and phocids (harbor seal). Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for other species due to PTS zone sizes. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

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 ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimates.

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).

Level B Harassment —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 μPa)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB (re 1 μPa) for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

The Petrogas proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.

Level A Harassment —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Petrogas proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and removal) sources.

These thresholds are provided in the table 4 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

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 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 ( i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal). Additionally, vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial activities in the project area may contribute to elevated background noise levels which may mask sounds produced by the project.

TL is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as the project site, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is assumed here.

The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate the distances to the Level A harassment and the Level B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop proxy source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods. The project includes vibratory and impact pile installation of 30-in steel piles and vibratory removal of 16-in timber piles. Source levels for the various pile sizes and driving methods are presented in table 5. Bubble curtains would be employed during all impact driving, with an assumed 5 dB effective attenuation (Caltrans 2020).

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 going to be 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 impact or vibratory pile driving and removal, 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 for impact driving in the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting estimated isopleths, are reported below in table 6 and table 7 below.

Title of Collection: State Official Notification Rule.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0019.

Type of Review: Extension without change of an existing information collection.

Affected Public: State and local governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hour: 2.

Abstract: Section 1042 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5552 (Act), gave authority to certain State and U.S. territorial officials to enforce the Act and regulations prescribed thereunder. Section 1042 also requires that the CFPB issue a rule establishing how States are to provide notice to the Bureau before taking action to enforce the Act (or, in emergency situations, immediately after taking such an action). In accordance with the requirements of the Act, the notice should be provided at least 10 days before the filing of an action with certain exceptions and setting forth a limited set of information which is to be provided with the notice. 1

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFPB, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the CFPB's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

I. Background

On June 10, 2022, CPSC announced in the Federal Register (87 FR 35513) a joint Beta Pilot test with CBP to assess eFiling certificate data for regulated consumer products and substances under CPSC's jurisdiction using CBP's PGA Message Set in ACE (Beta Pilot Test Announcement). The notice sought up to 50 Beta Pilot participants and provided a 60-day comment period for CPSC's Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) burden estimate for the Beta Pilot test. Pursuant to this notice, the Beta Pilot test is underway with 38 participants; CPSC received no comment on the burden estimates provided. On September 14, 2022, CPSC published a second notice in the Federal Register providing a 30-day public comment period on the burden estimates for the Beta Pilot test, as required by the PRA. 87 FR 56407. CPSC received no comments. Subsequently, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assigned control number 3041-0193 for the Beta Pilot test.

In 2023, CPSC and CBP began the Beta Pilot test, which is ongoing with 38 importer participants, along with their trade partners, such as brokers and laboratories. On December 8, 2023, CPSC published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) to revise 16 CFR part 1110 to, among other things, require eFiling of certificate data. 88 FR 85760. In this notice, CPSC and CBP announce their joint intent to expand the Beta Pilot test to include up to an additional 2,000 importer participants and to extend the Beta Pilot test for up to three years, or until an effective date of a final rule implementing an eFiling requirement. Accordingly, CPSC is seeking comment on a revised burden estimate for the collection of information related to the expanded Beta Pilot test, as required by the PRA.

CPSC's previous Beta Pilot Test Announcement (87 FR 35513, 35517-18) discussed CBP and CPSC's legal authority to conduct the Beta Pilot test. Additionally, the Beta Pilot Test Announcement and the recent SNPR to revise 16 CFR part 1110 explained CPSC's authority to require electronic filing of certificate data at the time of entry, or entry summary, if both are filed together. 87 FR 35513, 35518; 88 FR 85760, 85760-62.

The June 10, 2022, Beta Pilot Test Announcement explained CPSC's authority to require eFiling, the Alpha Pilot, 4 and the Beta Pilot test, including its purpose, structure, and burden. 87 FR 35513. The Beta Pilot Test Announcement also described the Commission's direction for an eFiling Program, explaining that on December 18, 2020, the Commission approved staff's recommended plan to implement a permanent eFiling program at CPSC. 5 The Beta Pilot test and the December 8, 2023 SNPR (88 FR 85760) are in furtherance of CPSC's eFiling Program. In 2024, CPSC staff expects to submit for Commission consideration a draft final rule to require eFiling of certificate data. In the interim, CPSC and CBP intend to expand the Beta Pilot test (expanded Beta Pilot test) to allow importers of regulated consumer products and substances to voluntarily participate in the eFiling program for up to three years, or until an effective date of a final rule implementing an eFiling requirement.

Participation in the expanded Beta Pilot test will allow importers to assess and refine capabilities for eFiling certificate data elements into ACE via a PGA Message Set. The expanded Beta Pilot test provides additional members of the import community more time to gradually prepare for and begin eFiling PGA Message Sets. Like the current Beta Pilot test, the expanded test will involve eFiling certificate data for regulated consumer products and substances under CPSC's jurisdiction that are classified under approximately 300 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes. 6 Current participants may participate in the expanded Beta Pilot test and should inform CPSC of their interest in continuing in the Beta Pilot.

The expanded Beta Pilot test will allow CPSC to further scale up the information technology (IT), procedural, and processing requirements of the Product Registry and the Risk Assessment Methodology system (RAM) before the anticipated full implementation. For example, CPSC will scale up IT systems to accept data for regulated consumer products from more importers; refine the required infrastructure for the real-time collection and use of data; and continue development of internal and external procedures to supply, use, and maintain certificate data. Expanding the Beta Pilot test will enable CPSC to continue developing RAM algorithms to triage import data received from CBP to detect more effectively noncompliant consumer products arriving at ports of entry.

To accommodate expansion of the Beta Pilot test, this notice seeks up to 2,000 additional participants and revises CPSC's PRA analysis to accommodate these additional participants by revising the estimated annual burden to participants.

CPSC is conducting the expanded Beta Pilot test in coordination with CBP and using the ACE system through which CBP collects importation and entry data, thus streamlining business processes and ensuring cargo security and compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. CBP developed ACE as the “single window” for the trade community to comply with the International Trade Data System (ITDS) requirement established by the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006. Trade filers must submit data to ACE using an EDI system, such as the Automated Broker Interface (ABI). Commercial trade participants, or the licensed customs brokers acting on their behalf, can electronically file entry data in ACE using ABI. A PGA Message Set allows the trade to enter agency-specific data along with entry data, through ABI, and for PGAs, such as CPSC, to receive this additional trade-related data.

The expanded Beta Pilot test will follow the same structure as the existing Beta Pilot test, with two different methods of filing certificate data using the PGA Message Set: (1) filing a minimum of seven data elements (Full PGA Message Set), or (2) filing only a reference to certificate data stored in a Product Registry maintained by CPSC (Reference PGA Message Set). Participants submit certificate data for regulated finished products, either as the Full PGA Message Set or the Reference PGA Message Set, in ACE at the time of entry filing or entry summary filing if both entry and entry summary are filed together. CBP then makes available to CPSC the PGA Message Set data and its corresponding entry data, for CPSC's validation, risk assessment, and admissibility determinations at entry, thereby facilitating compliant trade as well as sharpening CPSC focus on noncompliant trade. CPSC uses eFiled certificate data to review consumer product entry requirements and allow for earlier risk-based admissibility decisions to be made by CPSC staff. Additionally, because it is electronic, the PGA Message Set will eliminate or substantially reduce the necessity for submission and subsequent handling of paper documents. Section II of the 2022 Beta Pilot Test Announcement details the expected PGA Message Set data from a certificate of compliance as well as the methods for filing such data. 87 FR 35513, 35516-17.

CPSC's supplemental CATAIR guideline on filing certificate data through the PGA Message Set describes the technical specifications for filing during the expanded Beta Pilot test, as well as the Product Registry and Reference PGA Message Set. 7 Technical comments on CPSC's supplemental CATAIR guideline should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

This document announces CPSC's plan, in consultation with CBP, to expand the number of Beta Pilot test participants from 50 up to 2,000 importers, and to extend the Beta Pilot test period from six months to up to three years, or until an effective date of a final rule implementing an eFiling requirement. Accordingly, CPSC and CBP seek additional Beta Pilot test participants. U.S.-based importers with an assortment of CPSC-regulated products may participate in the Beta Pilot test. To be eligible to apply as a test participant, the applicant must:

• Import regulated consumer products within the Commission's jurisdiction;

• File consumption entries and entry summaries in ACE, or have a broker who files in ACE;

• Use a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set; and

• Work with CPSC and CBP to test electronic filing of data using ABI to file through the Message Set, or references to certificate data in the Product Registry.

CPSC anticipates that the benefits of participation in the Beta Pilot test may include, but will not necessarily be limited to:

• Opportunity to work directly with CBP and CPSC in the pre-implementation stage of the requirement to file certificate data; and

• Ability to trouble-shoot systems and procedures.

Any importer seeking to participate in the test should email their company name, contact information, importer of record number(s), filer code(s), and an explanation of how they satisfy the requirements for participation to the address listed at the beginning of this notice. CPSC will consider applications to participate for three years, until reaching the expanded Beta Pilot test capacity of 2,000 participants, or until the effective date of a final rule, whichever comes first. CPSC will notify expanded Beta Pilot test applicants of approval to participate by email and will work with importers to onboard into the Pilot on a first come, first served basis. Depending on the level of interest, CPSC may restrict on-boarding of new participants, at least in the beginning of the expanded Beta Pilot test, to accommodate all participants successfully and smoothly.

The Beta Pilot test contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by OMB under the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). CPSC previously received an OMB control number for the existing Beta Pilot test: 3041-0193. CPSC now seeks to expand the number of participants in this test up to 2,000 and extend the test duration for up to three additional years (2027), or until an effective date of a final rule implementing an eFiling requirement. In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:

• a title for the collection of information;

• a summary of the collection of information;

• a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;

• a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of responses to the collection of information;

• an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and

• notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.

Title: Beta Pilot Test for eFiling Certificates of Compliance.

Description: During the Beta Pilot test of CBP's PGA Message Set abilities through ACE, up to 2,000 participating importers of regulated consumer products will electronically file the requested certificate data, comprised of seven data elements, at the time of entry filing, or entry summary filing, if both entry and entry summary are filed together. Participants will have two ways to file certificate data during the Beta Pilot test: (1) filing certificate data in a CPSC-maintained Product Registry, and filing a reference number in ACE to this data set, through ABI, each time the product is imported thereafter (Reference PGA Message Set), or (2) filing all certificate data elements directly through ABI each time the product is imported (Full PGA Message Set). CPSC will receive the information from CBP through a real-time transfer of import data, and the agency will risk score the information in CPSC's RAM system to assist in the interdiction of noncompliant consumer products.

As set forth in section V.B of the Beta Pilot Test Announcement (87 FR 35513, 35517-18), the requirement to create and maintain certificates, including the data elements, is set forth in section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires manufacturers (including importers) and private labelers of certain regulated consumer products manufactured outside the United States to test and issue a certificate certifying such products as compliant with applicable laws and regulations before importation. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(g)(1) of the CPSA describes the data required on a certificate. Section 14(g)(3) requires a certificate to accompany the applicable product or shipment of products covered by the certificate, and that certifiers must furnish the certificate to each distributor or retailer of the product. Upon request, certificates must also be furnished to CPSC and CBP. Section 14(g)(4) provides that “[i]n consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, the Commission may, by rule, provide for the electronic filing of certificates under this section up to 24 hours before arrival of an imported product.” 15 U.S.C. 2063(g)(4). The Commission issued an SNPR to require eFiling on December 8, 2023. 88 FR 85760.

Because certificates are required by statute, this analysis focuses on the burden for CPSC to accept, and importers to provide, certificate data elements electronically at the time of entry filing, and not to collect and maintain certificate data more generally. Importer requirements in the Beta Pilot test for providing certificate data electronically at the time of entry filing fall within the definition of “collection of information,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

Description of Respondents: Up to 2,000 importer participants who import regulated consumer products within CPSC's jurisdiction.

Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

CPSC used information provided by Alpha Pilot test participants to inform the estimated burden for the Beta Pilot test. Like the existing Beta Pilot test, the burden from participating in the expanded Beta Pilot test can be broken down into the burden of preparing for participation in the Pilot, the burden of maintaining the data elements separately, and as compared to the Alpha Pilot test, the additional burden of including the dates of manufacturing and lab testing. Based on feedback from the Alpha Pilot test participants, for the current Beta Pilot test, we assumed that many more participants (90%) would opt to exclusively use the Product Registry and Reference PGA Message Set, while only 10% would opt to exclusively use the Full PGA Message Set. Table 3 of the 2022 Beta Pilot Test Announcement provides the total annual burden estimate for the current Beta Pilot, estimating 9,217 annual burden hours from all participants, with an estimated annual cost (combined for all participants) of $404,764 (in 2021 dollars). 87 FR 35513, 35520. When adjusted for inflation, the total estimated annual cost to current Beta Pilot test participants in 2023 is $ $442,002.

CPSC estimates that the expanded Beta Pilot test will have similar burden per response and cost per response as the participants in the current Beta Pilot test, with the exception of burden from survey responses, which will not be required of the expanded Beta Pilot test participants. 8 Accordingly, CPSC estimates that if an additional 2,000 importers participate, 1,800 participants will use the Product Registry and Reference PGA Message Set, while 200 participants will use the Full PGA Message Set.

Tables 1-3 contain burden estimates for the expanded Beta Pilot test, which are in addition to the burden estimates provided in the 2022 Beta Pilot Test Announcement for up to 50 participants. Table 1 shows an estimated 1,800 additional participants will use the Reference PGA Message Set and bear an annual burden of 265,000 hours, with an estimated total annual cost for all participants of $13,593,303. 9

The purpose of the proposed action is to continue the T-7A recapitalization program to prepare pilots to operate modern fourth and fifth generation aircraft. The need for the proposed action is to provide infrastructure and training systems to support the newer T-7A aircraft, allow for enhanced and improved flight and simulator training, and ensure DAF pilot training requirements are met.

Recapitalization entails introduction of T-7A aircraft and flight operations at Vance AFB to replace all T-38C aircraft assigned to the installation; nighttime (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.) flight operations; temporary changes to the number of personnel and dependents in the Vance AFB region during the 2-year transition period; and construction and upgrade of support and maintenance facilities. DAF is considering three alternatives to implement the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. For Alternative 1, Vance AFB would receive up to 68 T-7A aircraft and phase in T-7A operations at a level sustaining pilot training while simultaneously phasing out the T-38C. A temporary increase of approximately 100 personnel is projected. Several construction projects including (MILCON) projects, unspecified minor military construction (UMMC) projects, and facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization would potentially occur at Vance AFB to provide modern facilities and infrastructure to support T-7A aircraft maintenance, training, and operational requirements.

For Alternative 2, Vance AFB would receive up to 68 T-7A aircraft and perform T-7A operations at a level that is approximately 25 percent greater than Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is intended to cover a scenario in which, for either broad strategic or tactical operational reasons, DAF requires a surge or increase in pilot training operations above current plan. The number of T-7A aircraft arriving at Vance AFB and timeline of increased aircraft operations, new and renovated facilities, and personnel changes would be the same as described for Alternative 1. For Alternative 2, beginning in 2032, T-7A aircraft would perform annual operations at Vance AFB and associated SUA at an operational tempo that is 25 percent greater than Alternative 1. T-7A nighttime operations would occur with up to 873 annual nighttime operations at Vance AFB.

For Alternative 3, Vance AFB would receive up to 99 T-7A aircraft and perform annual operations approximately 45% greater than Alternative 1 once the aircraft transition is complete. Alternative 3 is intended to provide DAF with operational flexibility, and inclusion of this alternative in this EIS provides analysis to evaluate future capacity needs.

For the No Action Alternative, DAF would not implement T-7A recapitalization at Vance AFB. If the No Action Alternative were implemented, the T-7A aircraft disposition would be determined separately. Vance AFB's existing fleet of T-38C aircraft would continue to be used in their current capacity even though they will reach the end of their service lives within the next decade.

DAF anticipates potential for increased air emissions, particularly nitrogen oxides, and increased noise from the Proposed Action. Increased noise could have a disproportionate impact on environmental justice populations and impact off-installation land use compatibility. The EIS will model air emissions, noise levels, and the number of disturbance events, that would result from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives and compare them to current conditions. DAF will also consult with appropriate resource agencies and Native American tribes to determine the potential for significant impacts. Consultation will be incorporated into the preparation of the EIS and will include, but not be limited to, consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Scoping and Agency Coordination: To identify important environmental issues deserving of study and to deemphasize unimportant issues, narrowing the scope of the environmental impact statement process, DAF is soliciting comments from interested Federal, State, Tribal, and local, officials and agencies, as well as likely affected or interested members of the public. Comments are requested on alternatives and effects, as well as on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed action.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to replace aging F-15C/D aircraft currently utilized by the 173d Fighter Wing (173 FW) with the state-of-the-art fighter aircraft to better address future mission requirements, offer expanded capability, and provide life-cycle cost savings in comparison to continued operation of existing F-15C/D aircraft. The Proposed Action is needed because the F-15C/D aircraft are reaching the end of their service life. The EIS will assess the potential environmental consequences of beddown, operation, and associated infrastructure construction of one formal training unit squadron of F-35A Lightning II (F-35A) aircraft at Kingsley Field Air National Guard Base (ANGB) at the Crater Lake-Klamath Regional Airport in Klamath Falls, Oregon. The squadron would consist of 24 F-35A Primary Aerospace Vehicles Authorized and two Backup Aerospace Vehicles Authorized and would replace the existing 26 F-15C/D aircraft currently operating at Kingsley Field ANGB. The EIS will also assess a No Action Alternative.

Resource areas being analyzed for include noise, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, soils and geology, water resources, infrastructure and transportation, land use, hazardous materials and wastes, health and safety, air quality, and environmental justice and other sensitive receptors. Potential significant impacts include those related to aircraft noise, air quality, and land use. Should any permits or other authorizations be required, the NGB and DAF will identify and obtain each. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA; 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508 as well as agency implementing regulations.

Scoping and Agency Coordination: Consultation will include, but not necessarily be limited to, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and will include consultations with federally recognized Native American Tribes. The scoping process will be used to involve the public early in the planning and development of the EIS to assist in identifying issues and information to be addressed in the analysis. To effectively define the full range of issues to be evaluated, NGB and DAF will determine the scope of the analysis by requesting comments, including potential alternatives, information, and analyses from interested local, State, and Federal elected officials and agencies, Tribes, members of the public, and others. Comments will be accepted throughout the process, but in order to have comments incorporated into the Draft EIS, comments should be received within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The scheduled dates, times, locations, and addresses for the scoping meetings are concurrently being published in local media and on the website. Public scoping will be accomplished by an in-person meeting during the scoping period and the project website will provide posters, a presentation, informational fact sheets, downloadable comment forms to fill out and return by mail, and the capability for the public to submit scoping comments on-line. Comments received at the scoping meeting, via email, on the website, or by U.S. mail will be considered equally.

Purpose of Program: The Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students Program provides grants to eligible institutions of higher education (IHEs), or a consortia or system of such institutions, to advance systemic and sustainable solutions to student basic needs insecurity through support programs that address the basic needs of students and to report on practices that improve outcomes for students.

Background: Access to essential basic needs can have a significant impact on postsecondary success but numerous studies have found that too often, college students experience basic needs insecurity. In the Hope Center's 2020 survey of more than 195,000 college students conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, students of color were more likely to experience basic needs insecurity than their White peers. For students across two- and four-year institutions, 70 percent of Black students, 64 percent of Hispanic students, 66 percent of Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students, and 70 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students experienced basic needs insecurity, compared with 54 percent of White students. The average rate of basic needs insecurity at community colleges was 60 percent, compared to the average rate at four-year colleges of 56 percent. Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were 14 percentage points more likely to experience basic needs insecurity than students at non-HBCUs. 1

Evidence suggests that access to basic needs can impact student retention. For example, a study of Southern New Hampshire University students who received Federal emergency aid grants during the pandemic reported that students most frequently used the grant funds for housing, food, and transportation, and found that those students were as much as 15.5 percent more likely to stay enrolled the following semester. 2 Conversely, research has demonstrated a strong, statistically significant negative relationship between students who face housing insecurity and homelessness and college completion rates, persistence, and credit attainment. 3 Additionally, one study found that among food-insecure college students, only 43.8 percent completed their college degree, compared with 68.1 percent of food-secure college students. Among college students who completed a degree, those who experienced food insecurity were more likely to obtain an associate degree and were less likely to receive a bachelor's or graduate/professional degree than their food-secure counterparts. 4 According to the Department of Education, in the 2019-20 school year, 34.5 percent of students were food-insecure—46.7 percent of Black students, 39.3 percent of Hispanic students, 45.6 percent of Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students, and 39.3 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, compared to 28.8 percent of White students. During that same period, more than half of students (52.1 percent) at HBCUs and more than a third of students at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) (37.3 percent) were food-insecure. 5

Other types of basic needs insecurity also are barriers to higher education success. For example, lack of access to transportation has been found to be a barrier to higher education entry and completion due to factors including cost and affordability, poor reliability, and housing and work proximity. 6 In addition, with four million (22 percent) U.S. undergraduate students raising children while attending a postsecondary education program, 7 child care is a basic need for many college students. A lower percentage of student parents earned an undergraduate degree compared to students without children, and more than half (52 percent) of undergraduate student parents left school without a degree, within 6 years, compared to 32 percent of students without children, according to a 2019 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. 8

Access to mental health care services is also critical for college students. A 2023 survey found that more than half (56 percent) of students experienced chronic stress in college, and that 75 percent of students reported that stress is negatively impacting their ability to learn, focus, and do well academically. Thirty-five percent of college students said that the availability of counseling appointments at their institution needed improvement. 9

Despite the role that public benefits can play to support students, in a 2023 survey of nearly 300 financial aid administrators nationwide, 43 percent said that their institution does not do direct outreach to students about Federal benefit programs and have no plans of doing so. 10 According to a 2018 GAO report, only 31 percent of college students who met Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) income requirements reported receiving benefits. 11

To this end, this competition is designed to promote student success by supporting interventions and programs that holistically address the basic needs of students and reporting on those practices that improve student outcomes. The competition includes two absolute priorities, two competitive preference priorities, and two invitational priorities. The absolute priorities are designed to take a systemic evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for underserved students, and to benefit the institutions serving the highest number of students with basic needs insecurities, including community colleges, HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and Minority-serving institutions (MSIs). The competitive preference priorities are focused on supporting projects that meet the needs of the whole student and provide comprehensive student support services, as well as establishing a system of high-quality data collection and analysis to build evidence that furthers the research, development, continuous improvement, and scaling of basic needs programs and services. The two invitational priorities are focused on leveraging public benefit programs and developing campus-wide strategies to address student mental health needs.

Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities, two competitive preference priorities, and two invitational priorities. The absolute and competitive preference priorities are from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet each of these priorities.

These priorities are:

Projects that are designed to take a systemic evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for underserved students in one or more of the following priority areas:

(a) Coordinating efforts with Federal, State, or local agencies, or community-based organizations, that support students, to address two or more of the following:

(1) Food assistance.

(2) Housing.

(3) Transportation.

(4) Health, including physical health, mental health, and behavioral health and trauma.

(5) Child care.

(6) Technology.

(b) Conducting community needs and asset mapping to identify existing programs and initiatives that can be leveraged, and new programs and initiatives that need to be developed and implemented, to advance systemic change.

(c) Establishing cross-agency partnerships, or community-based partnerships with local nonprofit organizations, businesses, philanthropic organizations, or others, to meet family well-being needs.

Under this priority, an application must demonstrate that the project will be implemented by one or more of the following entities:

(1) Community colleges (as defined in this notice).

(2) Historically Black colleges and universities (as defined in this notice).

(3) Tribal Colleges and Universities (as defined in this notice).

(4) Minority-serving institutions (as defined in this notice).

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 7 points for Competitive Preference Priority 1 and up to 3 points for Competitive Preference Priority 2, depending on how well the application meets these priorities. Applicants may respond to none, one, or both competitive preference priorities.

These priorities are:

Projects that are designed to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students through creating a positive, inclusive, and identity-safe climate at IHEs through one or both of the following activities:

(1) Fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion for underserved students. (up to 3 points)

(2) Implementing evidence-based practices for advancing student success for underserved students. (up to 4 points)

Projects that are designed to increase postsecondary access, affordability, completion, and success for underserved students by establishing a system of high-quality data collection and analysis, such as data on persistence, retention, completion, and post-college outcomes, for transparency, accountability, and institutional improvement.

Invitational Priorities: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets these invitational priorities a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

These priorities are:

Under this priority, we are particularly interested in projects that include one or more of the following activities:

(a) Establishing processes to automatically identify and conduct outreach to students who may be eligible for public benefit programs in accordance with recent Federal guidance.

(b) Conducting ongoing and timely surveys and assessments of student basic needs security, including surveys of student needs conducted upon enrollment.

(c) Providing referrals and case management to students to enroll in local, State, and Federal public benefit programs.

(d) Coordinating and collaborating with government and community-based organizations and providing direct services such as temporary housing, secure sleeping arrangements, free or subsidized food, and access to child care.

Under this priority, we are particularly interested in projects that are designed to develop a campus-wide strategy to address student mental health needs. This includes creating inclusive campuses, increasing the availability of supportive and treatment services and access to additional staff, and implementing best practices, such as auditing existing campus mental health supports for effectiveness; identifying gaps and taking steps to tailor interventions to better meet the needs of vulnerable populations; implementing skill-training interventions; conducting routine screenings for depression, suicide risk, and anxiety; and investing in suicide means restriction.

Definitions: The definitions of “children or students with disabilities,” “community college,” “disconnected youth,” “English learner,” “Historically Black colleges and universities,” “military- or veteran-connected student,” “Minority-serving institution,” “Tribal Colleges or Universities,” and “underserved student” are from the Supplemental Priorities. The remaining definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1.

Children or students with disabilities means children with disabilities as defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3)) and 34 CFR 300.8, or students with disabilities, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(37), 705(20)(B)).

Note: Students with disabilities under 29 U.S.C. 705(20)(B) includes any individual with a disability as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102).

Community college means “junior or community college” as defined in section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages of 14 and 24, who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness, is in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working or not enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational institution.

English learner means an individual who is an English learner as defined in section 8101(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by promising evidence or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation ( e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable ( e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case ( e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Historically Black colleges and universities means colleges and universities that meet the criteria set out in 34 CFR 608.2.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Note: In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's (REL Pacific) Education Logic Model Application, available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/elm.asp to help design their logic models. Other sources include: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014025.pdf, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014007.pdf, and https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2015057.pdf.

Military- or veteran-connected student means one or more of the following:

(a) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101), in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, National Guard, Reserves, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service or is a veteran of the uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 3311).

(b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or veteran.

(c) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101).

Minority-serving institution means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias ( e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive ( i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation ( e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcomes(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Tribal Colleges or Universities has the meaning ascribed it in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA.

Underserved student means a student in postsecondary education in one or more of the following subgroups:

(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.

(b) A student of color.

(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

(d) An English learner.

(e) A child or student with a disability.

(f) A disconnected youth.

(g) A technologically unconnected youth.

(h) A migrant student.

(i) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

(j) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.

(k) A student who is in foster care.

(l) A student without documentation of immigration status.

(m) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.

(n) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.

(o) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.

(p) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.

(q) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in postsecondary education.

(r) A student who is enrolled in or is seeking to enroll in postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.

(s) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an adult student with limited English proficiency.

(t) A military- or veteran- connected student.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

Note: The What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as well as the more recent What Works Clearinghouse Handbook released in August 2022 (Version 5.0), are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d; the Explanatory Statement accompanying Division D of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47).

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.

Note: The U.S. Department of Education (ED) will implement the changes included in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) final rule, OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance ( https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/22/2024-07496/guidance-for-federal-financial-assistance ), formerly called, Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements, which amends 2 CFR part 200, on October 1, 2024. Grant applicants who anticipate a performance period start date on or after October 1, 2024, should follow the provisions stated in the updated 2 CFR part 200, when preparing an application. For more information about these updated regulations please visit: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/uniform-guidance/index.html. ED will continue to provide more resources on our web page as they become available.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $9,583,334.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent fiscal years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000 to $900,000.

Estimated Average Size of Award: $750,000.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $900,000 for the entire project period of 36 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 12.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 36 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: Community colleges (as defined in this notice), and two- and four-year public and private Historically Black colleges and universities (as defined in this notice), Tribal Colleges and Universities (as defined in this notice), other Minority-serving institutions (as defined in this notice), or a consortium or system of eligible institutions.

For institutions other than community colleges, only institutions that the Department determines are eligible as Historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other Minority-serving institutions, or which are granted a waiver in the notice published in the Federal Register one January 22, 2024 (89 FR 3916)announcing Eligibility Designations and Applications for Waiving Requirements, and that meet the other eligibility requirements described in this notice, may apply for a grant under those eligibility bases for this program.

Note: The list of institutions designated as eligible for FY 2024 under titles III and V of the HEA is available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html.

2.a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/202226554, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students Program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600 (Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information), please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

4. Funding Restrictions: We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria and the priorities that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no smaller than 10-pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the Application for Federal Assistance form (SF-424); the ED SF-424 Supplement form; the Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs form (ED 524); the assurances and certifications; or the one-page project abstract and supporting budget narrative.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria and up to 10 additional points under the competitive preference priorities, for a total score of up to 110 points. The selection criteria are as follows:

(a) Need for the project. (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project. (up to 5 points)

(2) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (up to 5 points)

(b) Quality of the project design. (up to 30 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with or build on similar or related efforts to improve relevant outcomes (as defined in this notice), using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources. (up to 10 points)

(2) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (up to 15 points)

(3) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (up to 5 points)

(c) Quality of project services. (up to 25 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(1) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (up to 5 points)

(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services. (up to 5 points)

(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services. (up to 15 points)

(d) Quality of project personnel. (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.

(1) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (up to 3 points)

(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (up to 7 points)

(e) Quality of the management plan. (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(f) Quality of the project evaluation. (up to 15 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (up to 5 points)

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. (up to 5 points)

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in this notice) about the project's effectiveness (up to 5 points).

Note: For the selection criterion “Quality of personnel” in paragraph (d), applicants are encouraged to include in their application that they are committed to paying their staff a living wage for the local area and providing benefits.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

A panel of three non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria in this notice, as well as the competitive preference priorities. A rank order funding slate will be made from this review. Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from the peer review.

In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the Department applies the following tie-breaking factors.

To resolve ties in the reader scores of applications, the Department will award one additional point to an application from an IHE with the highest percentage of degree/certificate-seeking students who are Pell grant recipients. If a tie remains after applying the preceding tiebreaker, the Department will award one additional point to an application from an IHE with the highest average score for the selection criterion “Quality of Project Services.” If a tie remains after applying the preceding tiebreaker, the Department will award one additional point to an application from an IHE with the highest average score for the selection criterion “Quality of the Project Design.” If a tie remains after applying the preceding tiebreaker, the Department will award one additional point to an application from an IHE with the highest average score for the selection criterion “Quality of the Project Evaluation.”

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this program, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

5. In General: In accordance with the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with:

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements, please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: For purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department will use the following performance measures to evaluate the success of the Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students Program:

(1) The percentage of low-income students at the grantee institution served by any direct student service supported by the grant.

(2) The annual persistence rate at the grantee institution for all students who are served by any direct student service supported by the grant.

(3) By the end of the grant period, the rate of degree or certificate completion at the grantee institution for all students served by any direct student service supported by the grant.

(4) The level of basic needs insecurity among all students served by any direct student service supported by the grant, measured before and after implementation of the grant.

Note: For purpose of the performance measures, the term “low-income student” means a student—

(a) Who is eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant for the award year for which the determination is made; or

(b) Who would otherwise be eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant for the award year for which the determination is made, except that the student fails to meet the requirements of section 484(a)(5) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(5), because the student is in the United States for a temporary purpose.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, requires civilian agencies other than the Department of Defense, that are required to submit an inventory in accordance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-270, 31 U.S.C. 501 note) to submit their inventories to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, section 743 requires these agencies, which include the Department of Education, to (1) make the inventory available to the public, and (2) publish in the Federal Register a notice announcing that the inventory is available to the public along with the name, telephone number, and email address of the agency point of contact.

Through this notice, the Department announces the availability of its inventory for FY 2022 on the following website: www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/contracts/servicecontractinventoryappendix/servicecontractinventory.html. The point of contact is provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Accessible Format: On request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department, published in the Federal Register in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300 et seq. ). Sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) transferred this regulatory authority, previously exercised by the now-defunct Federal Power Commission, to DOE.

Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) by Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.

On April 9, 2024, MFT Energy US Power LLC filed an application (Application or App.) with DOE to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico for a ten-year term. App. at 1.

According to the Application, MFT Energy US Power LLC “is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware” with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Id. The Applicant states that it “does not own or control any electric power generation or transmission facilities and does not have a franchised electric power service area.” Id. Further, MFT Energy US Power LLC represents that it “operates as a power marketer” and holds market-based rate authority provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Id. at 1-2.

The Applicant states it “will purchase surplus electric energy from entities within the United States to be exported to Mexico.” Id. at 4. Because the electric energy proposed to be exported will be surplus, the Applicant asserts its exports “will not impair the sufficiency of electric supply within the United States.” Id. Further, the Applicant states that “all electricity exported by Applicant will be transmitted pursuant to arrangements with utilities that own and operate existing transmission facilities and will be consistent with all applicable export limits on those transmitting facilities and with other terms and conditions contained in the applicable Presidential Permits.” App. at 5. Therefore, the Applicant asserts its exports will not impede the regional coordination of the electric grid. Id.

The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. See App. at Exhibit C.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).

Comments and other filings concerning MFT Energy US Power LLC's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-510. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Simon Fisker Rathjen, MFT Energy US Power LLC, 70 W Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602, sr@mft-energy.com and uspower@mft-energy.com; James C. Beh, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001, jcbeh@jonesday.com; and Brooke M. Proto, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001, bmproto@jonesday.com.

A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.

Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 29, 2024, by Maria Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, 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 Federal Register .

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300 et seq. ). Sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) transferred this regulatory authority, previously exercised by the now-defunct Federal Power Commission, to DOE.

Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.

On April 11, 2024, ATNV Energy, LP filed an application (Application or App.) with DOE to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico for a five-year term. App. at 1.

According to the Application, ATNV Energy, LP is “a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.” Id. ATNV Energy, LP states it is a “power marketer that does not own or operate a transmission system,” and its owners do not own or control an interest in any electric generation, transmission, or distribution facilities. Id. at 1, 4. The Applicant represents that it is “authorized to sell wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates” and is subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction. Id. at 2.

ATNV Energy, LLP states it “will purchase the electric power to be exported in the markets in which it participates, on a firm or interruptible basis,” and “[a]ny power purchased by the Applicant for export would be surplus to the needs of those entities selling power to the Applicant.” Id. at 3-4. The Applicant also asserts its exports will comply with all North American Electric Reliability Corporation requirements and exports limits imposed by DOE. Id. at 4. For these reasons, the Applicant contends that its exports “will not impair or tend to impede the sufficiency of electric supply in the United States or the regional coordination of electric utility planning or operations.” Id. at 5.

The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. See App. at Attachment 1.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at the email address provided previously. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at the previously provided email address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).

Comments and other filings concerning ATNV Energy, LP's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-512. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Kolby Kettler, ATNV Energy, LP, 1321 Upland Dr., Ste. 2100, Houston, TX 77043, kolby@atnvenergy.com; Sarah Tucker, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, stucker@sidley.com; and Keturah Brown, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, keturah.brown@sidley.com.

A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.

Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 29, 2024, by Maria Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, 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 Federal Register .

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300 et seq. ). Sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) transferred this regulatory authority, previously exercised by the now-defunct Federal Power Commission, to DOE.

Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.

On April 11, 2024, ATNV Energy, LP filed an application (Application or App.) with DOE to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a five-year term. App. at 1.

According to the Application, ATNV Energy, LP is “a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.” Id. ATNV Energy, LP states it is a “power marketer that does not own or operate a transmission system[,]” and its owners do not own or control an interest in any electric generation, transmission, or distribution facilities. Id. at 1, 4. The Applicant represents that it is “authorized to sell wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates” and is subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction. Id. at 2.

ATNV Energy, LP states it “will purchase the electric power to be exported in the markets in which it participates, on a firm or interruptible basis,” and “[a]ny power purchased by the Applicant for export would be surplus to the needs of those entities selling power to the Applicant.” Id. at 3-4. The Applicant also asserts its exports will comply with all North American Electric Reliability Corporation requirements and exports limits imposed by DOE. Id. at 4. For these reasons, the Applicant contends that its exports “will not impair or tend to impede the sufficiency of electric supply in the United States or the regional coordination of electric utility planning or operations.” Id. at 5.

The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. See App. at Attachment 1.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at the email address provided previously. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at the previously provided email address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).

Comments and other filings concerning ATNV Energy, LP's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-511. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Kolby Kettler, ATNV Energy, LP, 1321 Upland Dr., Ste. 2100, Houston, TX 77043, kolby@atnvenergy.com; Sarah Tucker, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, stucker@sidley.com; and Keturah Brown, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, keturah.brown@sidley.com.

A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.

Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 29, 2024, by Maria Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, 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 Federal Register .

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300 et seq. ). Sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) transferred this regulatory authority, previously exercised by the now-defunct Federal Power Commission, to DOE.

Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.

On May 3, 2019, DOE issued Order No. EA-469 authorizing PSE to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a term of five (5) years. On April 5, 2024, PSE filed an Application (Application or App.) for renewal of its export authority for a ten-year term or for such other period as DOE deems appropriate. App. at 1, 5.

According to the Application, “PSE is a public utility within the meaning of the FPA and is incorporated in the State of Washington.” Id. at 2. The Applicant states it “provides electric and natural gas services in a service territory covering approximately 6,000 square miles in the Puget Sound region[.]” Id. PSE states that its retail and wholesale business includes “the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric energy[.]” Id. Additionally, the Applicant represents that it “owns or controls a number of generation resources that are physically located in, or pseudo-tied into, the PSE BAA that are designated as participating resources in the [Energy Imbalance Market]” administered by the California Independent System Operator Corporation. Id. at 3. The Applicant represents that it is “authorized to sell energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates, and operates its transmission system pursuant to an Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) on file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission[.]” Id. at 2 (citation omitted). PSE asserts that its “proposed exports of electric energy will neither jeopardize the sufficiency of the electric supply nor the reliability of the transmission grid[.]” Id. at 3.

The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. See App at Exhibit C.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at the email address provided previously. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at the previously provided email address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).

Comments and other filings concerning PSE's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-469-A. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Jason Kuzma, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., P.O. Box 97034, Bellevue, WA 98009-9734, jason.kuzma@pse.com.

A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.

Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 29, 2024, by Maria Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, 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 Federal Register .

Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0174;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Petroleum Marketing Program;

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension with changes;

(4) Purpose: The surveys included in the Petroleum Marketing Program collect volume and price information needed for determining the supply of and demand for crude oil and refined petroleum products. These surveys provide a basic set of data pertaining to the structure, efficiency, and behavior of petroleum markets. These data are published by EIA on its website, at https://www.eia.gov. The Petroleum Marketing Program consists of the following surveys:

Form EIA-14  Refiners' Monthly Cost Report;

Form EIA-182  Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Report;

Form EIA-856  Monthly Foreign Crude Oil Acquisition Report;

Form EIA-877  Winter Heating Fuels Telephone Survey;

Form EIA-878  Motor Gasoline Price Survey;

Form EIA-888  On-Highway Diesel Fuel Price Survey;

(4a) Proposed Changes to Information Collection:

EIA proposes modifying Form EIA-888, On-Highway Diesel Fuel Price Survey, to include a checkbox allowing stations to indicate that they do not sell diesel fuel. This designation will make it easier to identify stations that are no longer in scope for the survey but are still in operation.

(4b) Proposed Survey Discontinuations:

EIA is requesting the discontinuation and removal of the following four surveys from the Petroleum Marketing Program:

The EIA-863, Petroleum Product Sales Identification Survey, has been suspended since 2011, with the last completed survey cycle occurring for 2006 data. Surveys previously reliant on these data for sample design have implemented new sampling methodologies, which no longer require these data. EIA proposes formally discontinuing this survey.

To concentrate limited EIA and respondent resources on more timely products, EIA proposes eliminating the EIA-782A, Refiners'/Gas Plant Operators' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report, the EIA-782C, Monthly Report of Prime Supplier Sales of Petroleum Products Sold for Local Consumption, and the EIA-821, Annual Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales Report, surveys. EIA remains committed to balancing the costs associated with collecting data (for both respondents and taxpayers) with the benefits of providing a more complete data set. The U.S. energy industry is dynamic, and our surveys and publications have and will continue to evolve to provide the best value to the American people in support of efficient energy markets. We continue to explore opportunities to incorporate similar data from other sources.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,710;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 178,880;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 26,489;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $2,414,737 (26,489 annual burden hours multiplied by $91.16 per hour), a reduction from $5,162,402 (63,226 annual burden hours multiplied by $81.65 per hour) in 2021. EIA estimates that respondents will have no additional costs associated with the surveys other than the burden hours and the maintenance of the information during the normal course of business.

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

Title: FERC-566: Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest Purchasers.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0114.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-566 information collection requirements with no revisions to the current requirements.

Abstract: Section 305(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 1 mandates federal oversight and approval of certain electric corporate activities to ensure that neither public nor private interests are adversely affected. The FPA prescribes information filing requirements to achieve this goal. These filing requirements are found at 18 CFR 46.3, and serve as the basis for FERC-566.

FERC-566 implements FPA requirements that each public utility annually publishes a list of the 20 purchasers which purchased the largest annual amounts of electric energy sold by such public utility during any of the three previous calendar years. The public disclosure of this information provides the information necessary to determine whether an interlocked position is with any of the 20 largest purchasers of electric energy.

Type of Respondents: Public utilities.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates 371 responses annually, and 4 hours and $400 per response. The total estimated burdens per year are 1,484 hours and $148,400. These burdens are itemized in the following table:

Title: FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status), and FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status).

OMB Control No.: 1902-0218.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-65, FERC-65A and FERC-65B information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract:

Pursuant to section 366.4 of the Commission's rules and regulations, persons who meet the definition of a holding company shall provide the Commission notification of holding company status. The FERC-65 is a one-time informational filing. The FERC-65 must be submitted within 30 days of becoming a holding company  1 . While the Commission does not require the information to be reported in a specific format, the filing needs to consist of the name of the holding company, the name of public utilities, the name of natural gas companies in the holding company system, and the names of service companies. In addition, the Commission requires the filing to include the names of special-purpose subsidiaries (which provide non-power goods and services) and the names of all affiliates and subsidiaries (and their corporate interrelationship) to each other. Filings may be submitted in hardcopy or electronically through the Commission's eFiling system.

While noting the previously outlined requirements of the FERC-65, the Commission has allowed for an exemption from the requirement of providing the Commission with a FERC-65 if the books, accounts, memoranda, and other records of any person are not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company; or if any class of transactions is not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company. Persons seeking this exemption file the FERC-65A, which must include a form of notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register . Those who file a FERC-65A in good faith will have a temporary exemption upon filing. After 60 days if the Commission has taken no action, the exemption will be deemed granted. Commission regulations within 18 CFR 366.3 describe the criteria in more specificity.

If an entity meets the requirements in 18 CFR 366.3(c), they may file a FERC-65B waiver notification pursuant to the procedures outlined in 18 CFR 366.4. Specifically, the Commission waives the requirement of providing it with a FERC-65 for any holding company with respect to one or more of the following: (1) single-state holding company systems; (2) holding companies that own generating facilities that total 100 MW or less in size and are used fundamentally for their own load or for sales to affiliated end-users; or (3) investors in independent transmission-only companies. Filings may be made in hardcopy or electronically through the Commission's website.

Type of Respondent: Public utility companies, natural gas companies, electric wholesale generators, foreign utility holding companies.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   2 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) published a Federal Register notice (Proposed FRN) on February 7, 2024 (89 FR 8423), proposing to extend the existing formula rates under Rate Schedules L-NT1, L-FPT1, L-NFPT1, L-NFJDT, L-UU1, L-AS1, L-AS2, L-AS3, L-AS4, L-AS5, L-AS6, L-AS7, and L-AS9. The Proposed FRN also initiated a 30-day public consultation and comment period.

By Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-RATES-2016, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) the authority to develop power and transmission rates to the WAPA Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, or to remand or disapprove such rates, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). By Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023, effective April 10, 2023, the Secretary of Energy also delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Under Secretary for Infrastructure. By Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-WAPA1-2023, effective April 10, 2023, the Under Secretary for Infrastructure further redelegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to WAPA's Administrator. This extension is issued under Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-WAPA1-2023 and Department of Energy rate extension procedures set forth at 10 CFR part 903. 1

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through email or https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to include CBI in your comment, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see guidance provided at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

EPA has received the following application to register new uses for a new pesticide product containing a currently registered active ingredient. Pursuant to FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt of this application and an opportunity to comment on the information provided below as well as the current proposed labeling associated with this application. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on this application.

File Symbol: 7969-LNT. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0154. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Dicamba. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: Dicamba-tolerant cotton and dicamba-tolerant soybeans. Contact: RD. This proposed new use has been coded as an R170, additional food use, which carries a PRIA 5 statutory review time of 17 months from the date that the action gets in-processed. Because EPA expects a large stakeholder interest in this application, EPA also included in the docket the BASF's current proposed labeling associated with the application.

The EPA received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity dated September 19, 2023, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. 02OPWE252 issued by CDPHE to DCP Operating Company, LP in Weld County, Colorado. On April 2, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition. The order itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than August 5, 2024.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help: