Agricultural Marketing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Justice Programs Office
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is adopting this final rule amending its Rules of Practice and Procedure and other agency regulations to adjust each civil money penalty within its jurisdiction to account for inflation, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
Effective January 28, 2020, and is applicable beginning January 15, 2020.
Stephen E. Hart, Deputy General Counsel, at (202) 649-3053,
FHFA is an independent agency of the Federal government, and the financial safety and soundness regulator of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises), as well as the Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the Banks) and the Office of Finance under authority granted by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act).
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Inflation Adjustment Act), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Adjustment Improvements Act), requires FHFA, as well as other federal agencies with the authority to issue civil money penalties (CMPs), to adjust by regulation the maximum amount of each CMP authorized by law that the agency has jurisdiction to administer.
The Adjustment Improvements Act sets forth the formula that agencies must apply when making annual adjustments, based on the percent change between the October Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (the CPI-U) preceding the date of the last adjustment and the October CPI-U for the year before that.
This final rule adjusts the maximum penalty amount within each of the three tiers specified in 12 U.S.C. 4636 by amending the table contained in 12 CFR 1209.80 of the Enforcement regulations to reflect the new adjusted maximum penalty amount that FHFA may impose upon a regulated entity or any entity-affiliated party within each tier. The increases in maximum penalty amounts contained in this final rule may not necessarily affect the amount of any CMP that FHFA may seek for a particular violation, which may not be the maximum that the law allows; FHFA would calculate each CMP on a case-by-case basis in light of a variety of factors.
The Adjustment Improvements Act directs federal agencies to calculate each annual CMP adjustment as the percent change between the CPI-U for the previous October and the CPI-U for
When promulgating any regulation that may have future effect relating to the Banks, the Director is required by section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure, mission of providing liquidity to members, affordable housing and community development mission, capital structure, and joint and several liability (12 U.S.C. 4513(f)).
FHFA finds good cause that notice and an opportunity to comment on this final rule are unnecessary under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The Adjustment Improvements Act states that the annual civil money penalty adjustments shall be made notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
Civil remedies, Program fraud.
Flood insurance, Government-sponsored enterprises, Penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
5 U.S.C. 554, 556, 557, and 701
The maximum amount of each civil money penalty within FHFA's jurisdiction, as set by the Safety and Soundness Act and thereafter adjusted in accordance with the Inflation Adjustment Act, is as follows:
The inflation adjustments set out in § 1209.80 shall apply to civil money penalties assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4636, and subparts B and C of this part, for violations occurring after January 15, 2020.
12 U.S.C. 4501; 12 U.S.C. 4526; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
(a) * * *
(1) A civil penalty of not more than $11,665 may be imposed upon a person who makes a claim to FHFA for property, services, or money where the person knows or has reason to know that the claim:
(b) * * *
(1) A civil penalty of up to $11,665 may be imposed upon a person who makes a written statement to FHFA with respect to a claim, contract, bid or proposal for a contract, or benefit from FHFA that:
12 U.S.C. 4521(a)(4) and 4526; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 4001 note; 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(3), (4), (5), (8), (9), and (10).
(c)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; lift of stay; date of effectiveness for collection-of-information requirements.
NMFS announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of collection-of-information requirements, which were contained in regulations to implement catch handling and monitoring requirements to allow Pacific halibut (halibut) bycatch to be sorted on the deck of trawl catcher/processors (C/Ps) and motherships participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries off Alaska, in a final rule published on October 15, 2019. The intent of this rule is to inform the public of the effectiveness of the collection-of-information requirements associated with the catch handling and monitoring requirements included in the October 15, 2019, final rule.
This rule is effective January 28, 2020. The stays of 50 CFR 679.28(d)(9) and (10) and (l) and 679.120(b), (c), (d), and (e) are lifted effective January 28, 2020. The collection-of-information requirements in 50 CFR 679.28(d)(9) and (10) and (l) and 679.120(b), (c), (d), and (e) were effective December 16, 2019.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; by email to
Joseph Krieger, 907-586-7228 or
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the
NMFS issued a final rule to implement catch handling and monitoring requirements to allow halibut bycatch to be sorted on the deck of trawl C/Ps and motherships participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries off Alaska. The final rule was published in the
Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires that agencies inventory and display a current control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for each agency's information collection. Section 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which OMB approval numbers have been issued. Because this final rule adds and revises collection-of-information requirements, 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to reference correctly the sections resulting from this final rule.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this action because notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This action simply provides notice of OMB's approval of the reporting requirements at issue, which has already occurred, and renders those requirements effective. Thus this action does not involve any further exercise of agency discretion by NMFS or OMB. Moreover, the public has had prior notice and the opportunity to comment on the collection-of-information requirements. NMFS published a proposed rule including the collection-of-information requirements (84 FR 15566; published April 16, 2019), with comments accepted until May 16, 2019. An additional opportunity for public comment at this point would not be meaningful and would be duplicative.
For the reasons above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and make this rule effective immediately upon publication.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA and which OMB approved under OMB Control Numbers 0648-0318 and 0648-0330 on December 16, 2019. The public reporting burden for these collection-of-information requirements includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
This final rule requires vessel owners or operators of trawl C/Ps and motherships who choose to sort halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) on deck to have a NMFS-approved Deck Safety Plan prior to participating in halibut deck sorting. Currently 24 vessels have participated in halibut deck sorting with a fully developed Deck Safety Plan. NMFS estimates approximately three new vessels may choose to participate in deck sorting over the next three years. Public reporting burden for the development of a new Deck Safety Plan during the first (initial) year a vessel participates in halibut deck sorting is estimated to average 12 hours. After the first year, the public reporting burden for a respondent to modify or renew an existing Deck Safety Plan is estimated to be one hour.
For vessel owners or operators of trawl C/Ps and motherships who choose to sort halibut PSC on deck, the public reporting burden per response to notify the Observer Program by phone is estimated to be five minutes, the burden to notify the observer is estimated at two minutes, and appeal of a disapproved Deck Safety Plan is estimated at 4 hours.
When this action takes effect, 24 vessels will have participated in halibut deck sorting with installed deck video monitoring systems and observer deck sampling stations in compliance with regulations. NMFS estimates approximately three new vessels may choose to participate in deck sorting over the next three years. This final rule requires vessel owners or operators of trawl C/Ps and motherships who choose to sort halibut PSC on deck to install an observer sampling station on deck for use by the observer when deck sorting halibut. Public reporting burden for the installation of the observer deck sampling station during the first (initial) year a vessel participates in halibut deck sorting is estimated to average 12 hours. After the first year, annual maintenance of observer sampling stations both in the factory and on deck is expected to be minimal and will likely be done with other factory modifications initiated by the vessel to improve processing efficiency. Annual public reporting burden after the first year is estimated at one minute.
In addition, these vessels must install a deck sorting video monitoring system on deck. Public reporting burden for the installation of the video monitoring system is estimated to average 12 hours. After the first year, annual maintenance of the video monitoring system, including routine inspection and time required to call out for any needed repair, is estimated at one minute.
Public reporting burden for the Inspection Request for Observer Sampling Station, At-sea Scales, Video
Send comments on these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS Alaska Region (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
16 U.S.C. 773
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
(b) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary safety zones on the waters of the Delaware River in portions of Marcus Hook Range, Tinicum Range and Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range. The safety zones will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting or anchoring in portions of the Delaware River while rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations are being conducted to facilitate the Main Channel Deepening project, and annual maintenance project for the Delaware River. The safety zones are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards created by rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or his designated representatives.
This interim rule is effective without actual notice from January 28, 2020 through March 15, 2020. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 12, 2020, through January 28, 2020.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 12, 2020.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2020-0001 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone (215) 271-4889, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the start date for blasting and dredging operations. The rule must be in force by January 12, 2020, to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety of the general public from hazards associated with rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We are soliciting comments on this rulemaking. If the Coast Guard determines that changes to the rule are necessary we will publish a subsequent
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that there are potential hazards associated with the rock blasting and dredging operations. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the vicinity of rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations.
This rule establishes three safety zones from January 12, 2020, through March 15, 2020. The safety zones are necessary to facilitate the main channel deepening and annual maintenance of the Delaware River from Marcus Hook Range to Tinicum Range, and Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range (as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8)). Rock drilling, hammering, removal, and dredging operations will most likely be conducted with the drill boat APACHE, dredge NEW YORK, and dredge ESSEX, though other dredges may be used, along with associated dredge pipeline and boosters. The pipeline consists of a combination of floating hoses immediately behind the dredge ESSEX and submerged pipeline leading to upland disposal areas. Due to the hazards related to rock drilling, hammering, removal, and dredging operations, the associated pipeline and the location of submerged pipeline, safety zones are being established in the following areas:
(1) Safety zone one includes all navigable waters within 250 yards of the dredge displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in ability to maneuver as described in 33 CFR 83.27 and all related dredge equipment when the dredge is operating in New Castle Range, Marcus Hook Range, Deepwater Point Range, and Anchorage 7. This safety zone is being established for the duration of the maintenance project. Vessels requesting to transit the safety zone must contact the dredge on VHF channel 13 or 16 at least 1 hour prior to arrival to arrange safe passage. At least one side of the main navigational channel will be kept clear for safe passage of vessels in the vicinity of the safety zone. At no time will the entire main navigational channel be closed to vessel traffic. Vessels should avoid meetings in these areas where one side of the main navigational channel is open and proceed per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E).
(2) Safety zone two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8). Vessels wishing to anchor in Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24 hours in advance by calling (215) 271-4807. The COTP will permit only one vessel to anchor at a time on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Vessels will only be allowed to anchor for a 12 hour period. Vessels that require an examination by the Public Health Service, Customs, or Immigration authorities will be directed to an anchorage by the COTP for the required inspection. Vessels are encouraged to use Anchorage 9 near the entrance to Mantua Creek, Anchorage 10 at Naval Base, Philadelphia, and Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point Range as alternative anchorages.
(3) Safety zone three covers all navigable waters in the Delaware River within 500 yards of vessels and machinery being used to conduct rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations between Marcus Hook Range and Tinicum Range.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within safety zone one is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the COTP or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the operating dredge per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). Though the dredge ESSEX, and the dredge NEW YORK are the primary dredges to be used in these operations, the COTP may update the information and the dredges being utilized with these dredging operations via Marine Safety Information Bulletin and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Safety zone three will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not conflict with transiting commercial and recreational traffic, except for the short periods of time when explosive detonations are being conducted and shortly thereafter, when the channel is being surveyed to ensure the navigational channel is clear for vessels to transit. It is expected that these detonations will not occur more than three times a day. At all other times, at least one side of the main navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit. This rule describes communications for notifying waterway users of upcoming detonations and provides means for waterway users to request entry into the safety zone.
The COTP will activate and terminate the safety zones individually once all submerged pipeline has been recovered and dredging operations are completed in each respective area. Notice of the activation and the termination of the safety zones will be made in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and traffic management of the safety zone. The safety zone will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not conflict with transiting commercial and recreational traffic, except for the short periods of time when explosive detonations are being conducted. It is anticipated that the blasting detonations will not occur more than three times a day. At all other times, at least one side of the main navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit. Moreover, the Coast Guard will work in coordination with the pilots to ensure vessel traffic is limited during the times of detonation and Broadcast Notice to Mariners are made via VHF-FM marine channel 13 and 16 when blasting operations will occur.
Although this regulation will restrict access to regulated areas, the effect of this rule will not be significant because there are a number of alternate anchorages available for vessels to anchor. Furthermore, vessels may transit through the safety zones with the permission of the COTP or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the dredge ESSEX, drill boat APACHE, dredge NEW YORK or other dredges that may be used in accordance with this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). Notification of the safety zones to the maritime public will be made via maritime advisories allowing mariners to alter their plans accordingly.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule has a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones to protect waterway users that would prohibit entry within 500 yards of rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal conducted by the drill boat APACHE and the dredge NEW YORK, within 250 yards of the dredge ESSEX and associated equipment, and within Marcus Hook Anchorage (No. 7) without prior approval. Vessels can request permission to enter the safety zones. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this interim final rule as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) Safety zone one includes all waters within 250 yards of the dredge displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in ability to maneuver as described in 33 CFR 83.27, as well as all related dredge equipment, while the dredge is operating in Marcus Hook Range. For enforcement purposes Marcus Hook Range includes all navigable waters of the Delaware River shoreline to shoreline, bound by a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of the channel at the farthest upriver point of the range to a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of the channel at the farthest downriver point of the range.
(2) Safety zone two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8) and depicted on U.S. Nautical Chart 12312.
(3) Safety zone three includes all the navigable waters of the Delaware River within 500 yards of vessels and machinery performing rock blasting, rock removal, and dredging operations, between Marcus Hook Range and Tinicum Range.
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels desiring to anchor in safety zone two, Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range, must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24 hours in advance by calling (215) 271-4807. The COTP will permit one vessel at a time to anchor on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Vessels will only be allowed to anchor for a 12 hour period. Vessels that require an examination by the Public Health Service, Customs, or Immigration authorities will be directed to an anchorage for the required inspection by the COTP.
(3) The operator of any vessel requesting to transit through safety zone three shall proceed as directed by the drill boat APACHE, the dredge TEXAS and NEW YORK, or the designated representative of the Captain of the Port and must operate at the minimum safe speed necessary to maintain steerage and reduce wake.
(4) No vessels may transit through safety zone three during times of explosive detonation. During explosive detonation, vessels will be required to maintain a 500 yard distance from the drill boat APACHE. The drill boat APACHE will make broadcasts, via VHF-FM Channel 13 and 16, at 15 minutes, 5 minutes, and 1 minute prior to detonation, as well as a countdown to detonation on VHF-FM Channel 16.
(4) After every explosive detonation a survey will be conducted by the dredging contractor to ensure the navigational channel is clear for vessels to transit. The drill boat APACHE will broadcast, via VHF-FM channel 13 and 16, when the survey has been completed and the channel is clear to transit. Vessels requesting to transit through the safety zone shall proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port and contact the drill boat APACHE on VHF-FM channel 13 to make safe passing arrangements.
(5) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in the following operations: Enforcement of laws, service of aids to navigation, and emergency response.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters in Isle of Wight Bay. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of personnel and vessels at and immediately adjacent to the Harry W. Kelley Memorial (US-50) Bridge during submarine electrical cable replacement operations, which will occur daily, from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. on January 27, 2020, through February 3, 2020. This rule will prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from January 28, 2020 through February 3, 2020. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 27, 2020, until January 28, 2020.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Courtney Perry, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone 410-576-2570, email
The Maryland Department of Transportation notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting an installation of submarine cables from January 27, 2020, through February 3, 2020, within the navigation channel at the Harry W. Kelley Memorial (US-50) Bridge located in Ocean City, MD. The installation operations will be conducted at all hours of the day throughout this time period. In response, on December 17, 2019, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Isle of Wight Bay, Ocean City, MD (84 FR 68858). We stated why we issued the NPRM and allowed for commenting on our proposed regulatory action. We received no comments during the comment period which ended on January 2, 2020.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that the potential hazards associated with the installation of submarine electrical cables would be a safety concern for anyone at and immediately adjacent to the Harry W. Kelley Memorial Bridge during these operations. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM, which was published on December 17, 2019. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a safety zone from January 27, 2020, through February 3, 2020, that will be enforced daily from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Isle of Wight Bay, in Ocean City, MD encompassed by an area connecting the following points: Beginning at 38°19′57.2″ N, 075°05′26.0″ W, thence to 38°19′56.9″ N, 075°05′24.8″ W, thence to 38°19′55.6″ N, 075°05′25.3″ W, thence to 38°19′55.9″ N, 075°05′26.6″ W, and back to the beginning point. The zone is established to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled submarine cable installation. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, additionally, we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and the time-of-year of the safety zone. The submarine cable installation is being planned during the winter/non-peak season, when vessel transit in this area of the channel is unlikely. Vessel traffic not required to use the navigation channel will be able to safely transit around the safety zone. This safety zone will impact a small designated area of the Isle of Wight Bay for approximately 8 days, but coincides with the non-peak season for recreational boating.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If this rule will effect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under the Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and the Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately eight days that would prohibit use of navigable waters at or adjacent to the Harry W. Kelley Memorial (US-50) Bridge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e)
(f)
Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is reopening the comment period for its proposed rule concerning Negotiability Proceedings for an additional 14 days. The original comment period ended on January 22, 2020.
The comment period for the proposed rule published December 23, 2019, at 84 FR 70439, is reopened. Written comments must be received on or before February 11, 2020.
You may send comments, which must include the caption “Negotiability Proceedings,” by one of the following methods:
•
•
Rebecca Osborne, Deputy Solicitor, at
On December 23, 2019, the FLRA requested comments on a proposed rule, published at 84 FR 70439, to revise the regulations governing negotiability appeals in order to better expedite proceedings. The original comment period for the proposed rule ended on January 22, 2020. Relatedly, in Case No. 0-PS-35, the FLRA issued a decision that referred to forthcoming revisions to the regulations governing negotiability appeals. To provide interested parties a further opportunity to comment about all of the issues addressed in the proposed rule, including the issues raised in Case No. 0-PS-35, the FLRA is reopening the comment period for an additional 14 days. Parties should refer to the proposed rule, at 84 FR 70439, for further details about the issues under consideration.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to revise the U.S. Standards for Grades of Topped Carrots, U.S. Standards for Grades of Bunched Carrots, and U.S. Standards for Grades of Carrots with Short Trimmed Tops. AMS is proposing to add more U.S. No. 1 grades to accommodate carrots of colors other than orange, orange red, and orange scarlet. The current U.S. No. 1 grades would remain unchanged. In addition, AMS is proposing to remove the Unclassified section and renumber sections due to the additional grades.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 30, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the USDA, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, VA 22406; fax: (540) 361-1199; or at
Contact David G. Horner at the address above, by phone (540) 361-1128; fax (540) 361-1199; or, email
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The U.S. Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations are maintained by AMS at:
AMS continually reviews all fruit and vegetable grade standards to ensure their usefulness to the industry, modernize language, and remove duplicative terminology. On December 22, 2008, AMS published a notice in the
After gathering more feedback from the industry, AMS developed additional grades to accommodate other colors. For the Topped Carrots, two new grades are U.S. No. 1 Color and U.S. No. 1 Jumbo Color. For the Bunched and Short Trimmed Carrots, the new grade is U.S. No. 1 Color. The current grades remain unchanged. The new grades are identical to the current grades except for the color requirement (the following tables summarize the proposed revisions).
AMS spoke with several major U.S. carrot growers by telephone and emailed them a discussion paper on the proposed revisions. No one opposed the changes.
In addition, AMS is proposing to remove the Unclassified section. AMS is removing this section in all standards as they are revised, as it is no longer considered necessary. The category was never a grade and only served to show no grade was applied to the lot.
Finally, some sections would be renumbered due to the additional grades.
The following tables summarizes the proposed revisions and provides rationale for any changes.
As stated, the proposed revisions will ensure all grades are premium quality, provide greater flexibility, and bring the standards in line with current marketing trends.
A 60-day comment period is provided for interested persons to submit comments on the proposed revised grade standards. Copies of the proposed revised standards are available at
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton Sundstrand) 54H60 model propellers. This proposed AD was prompted by the failure of a propeller blade that resulted in the loss of the airplane. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive eddy current inspections (ECI) of the affected propeller blades and replacement of the propeller blades that fail the inspection. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 13, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, 1 Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010, United States; phone: 877-808-7575; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Maureen Maisttison, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7076; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Maureen Maisttison, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA received a report of the separation of a 54H60 model propeller blade installed on a United States Marine Corps Reserve KC-130T airplane during a flight in July 2017. The separation of the blade resulted in the loss of the airplane and 17 fatalities. The investigation of this event revealed the Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propeller blade separated due to corrosion that was not corrected at the last propeller overhaul. The investigation further revealed that 54H60 model propeller blades manufactured before 1971 are susceptible to this unsafe condition. The applicability of this AD is therefore limited to those Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propellers blades with a blade serial number below 813320, which are those propeller blades manufactured before 1971. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the propeller blade, blade separation, and loss of the airplane.
The FAA reviewed Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019. The ASB describes procedures for performing an ECI of the propeller blade taper bore. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require an initial and repetitive ECI of the affected propeller blades and removal from service of any blades that fail these inspections.
This proposed rule does not require that operators send blades that fail the inspection to a designated repair facility. Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019 indicates that these blades should be sent to a designated repair facility.
The FAA considers this proposed AD interim action. The root cause of the 54H60 model propeller blade separation is still under investigation. The FAA may consider further rulemaking action.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 212 propellers installed on 53 aircraft of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by March 13, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to all Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton Sundstrand) model 54H60 propellers with a blade having a serial number (S/N) below S/N 813320.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6111, Propeller Blade Section.
This AD was prompted by the separation of a propeller blade that resulted in the loss of an airplane and 17 fatalities. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect cracking in the propeller blade taper bore. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the propeller blade, blade separation, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For affected propellers identified in Planning Information, paragraph 1.E.(1), of Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019 (“the ASB”), perform an eddy current inspection (ECI) of all blades installed on the propeller within one year or 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) For affected propellers identified in Planning Information, paragraph 1.E.(2), of the ASB, perform an ECI of all blades installed on the propeller within two years or 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(3) Perform the ECI of the affected propeller blades in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C. of the ASB.
(4) If any propeller blade fails the inspections required by this AD, based on the criteria in paragraph 3.C. of the ASB, remove the blade from service prior to next flight and replace with a blade eligible for installation.
(5) For all affected propellers, repeat the inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD at intervals not exceeding 3 years or 1,500 flight hours, whichever comes first, after the previous inspection.
(6) Report the results of the ECI required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(6) of the ASB.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any Hamilton Sundstrand propeller blades having an S/N below 813320 on any propeller, unless the blade has first passed the inspection required by this AD. After the effective date of this AD, do not install any propeller assemblies with affected propeller blades onto any aircraft unless the affected propeller blades have passed the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
(1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Maureen Maisttison, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7076; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, 1 Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010, United States; phone: 877-808-7575; email:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Extension of comment period.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (Supplemental NPR) to promulgate a consumer product safety standard for infant sleep products (infant sleep products) in the
Submit comments by February 26, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0020, electronically or in writing:
On October 25, 2019, the Commission voted to publish a Supplemental NPR in the
The Commission has considered this request and will grant an extension of the comment period by 30 days, until February 26, 2020.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a 48-hour time limit in Anchorage Area (B) in Bolivar Roads near Galveston, Texas. Currently anchorage areas (A) and (C) in the Bolivar Roads Channel have a 48-hour time limit, however anchorage (B) does not. This has resulted in vessels remaining in anchorage (B) for extended periods, blocking other vessels with pressing logistical needs, adversely affecting commerce and impacting navigational safety. Except when stress of weather makes sailing impractical or hazardous, under this proposed rule, vessels would not be permitted to anchor in anchorage area (B) for more than 48 hours unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0028 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Sarah Rousseau or LT Nathaniel Clinger, Sector Houston-Galveston Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 281-464-4736/4782, email
On October 11, 2018, the Texas Lone Star Harbor Safety Committee requested a regulatory change to the Galveston Harbor Bolivar Roads Anchorage area (B). The HSC submitted a recommendation to the Sector Houston-Galveston Captain of the Port that Anchorage area (B) be regulated under the same 48-hour time limit as the adjacent Anchorage areas (A) and (C). The HSC developed a working group, the Anchorage Working Group, to assess the optimal ways to use the anchorage to facilitate safety and efficiency within the port.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to align the Galveston Harbor Bolivar Roads Anchorage area (B) to the adjacent anchorages, necessary to address port congestion and navigation safety concerns. The local VTS will continue to monitor and control vessel movement within the Anchorage area (B); in addition, the VTS will be allowed to grant extensions for extenuating circumstances. The Coast Guard is proposing to revise 33 CFR 110.197 to establish the 48-hour time limit in the Anchorage area (B). Given the limited anchorage space available, the anchorage will improve the safety of vessels operating, transiting, or anchored and moored in the vicinity, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce in the area.
The legal basis and authorities for this notice of proposed rulemaking are found in 33 U.S.C. 471 which authorizes the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorages.
The Commander of the Coast Guard Eighth District is proposing to establish a 48-hour anchorage time limit in the Galveston Harbor Bolivar Roads Anchorage area (B). This 48-hour
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the anchorage duration of vessels in a previously established anchorage ground. This regulation will have a positive impact on vessel traffic of the waterway, increasing the efficiency of the limited inshore anchorage space for Houston and Galveston.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The number of small entities impacted and the extent of the impact, if any, is expected to be minimal. The anchorage area is located in an area of Bolivar Roads that is not a popular or productive fishing location. Further, the location is in an area not routinely transited by vessels heading to, or returning from, known fishing grounds. Finally, the anchorage is located in an area that is not currently used by small entities, including small vessels, for anchoring due to the depth of water naturally present in the area.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a 48-hour anchor time limit in the Galveston Harbor Bolivar Roads Anchorage area B. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L59(b) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Anchorage Grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) * * *
(2) Except when stress of weather makes sailing impractical or hazardous, vessels shall not anchor in anchorage areas (A), (B), or (C) for more than 48 hours unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston. Permission to anchor for longer periods may be obtained through Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston on VHF-FM channels 12 (156.60 MHz) or 13 (156.65 MHz).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in coordination with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). This proposed revision would update certain PSCAA regulations currently in the SIP, remove obsolete regulations, and approve a subset of updated Ecology regulations to apply in PSCAA's jurisdiction.
Written comments must be received on or before February 27, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0710 at
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256, or
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. This
On January 27, 2014, Ecology submitted revisions to update the general air quality regulations contained in Chapter 173-400 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which the EPA approved in three phases on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59653), November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66291), and April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23721).
Appendix A of the SIP revision shows how the submitted regulatory updates would apply to PSCAA's jurisdiction. These revisions can be summarized in three general categories, which are discussed in more detail in sections II and III. The first category consists of updates to the PSCAA Regulation I provisions currently in the SIP. These updated provisions apply in lieu of, or serve as a supplement to, the statewide Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions, as shown in Table 1. The second category consists of those parts of Chapter 173-400 WAC incorporated by reference in Regulation I. The EPA's proposed approval of the Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions incorporated by reference in Regulation I would be subject to the same exceptions that apply to Ecology's direct jurisdiction, as shown in Table 2. For example, as part of the January 2014 submittal of Chapter 173-400 WAC, Ecology did not submit for approval those provisions related to the regulation of toxic air pollutants, because such provisions are outside the scope of SIPs under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110. The last category consists of certain parts of Chapter 173-400 WAC which do not have a direct corollary under PSCAA Regulation I, nor are they incorporated by reference in Regulation I. In these cases, Ecology and PSCAA requested that the EPA revise the SIP to include the most recently approved updates to Chapter 173-400 WAC to apply in PSCAA's jurisdiction, as shown in Table 3.
The EPA last approved updates to PSCAA Regulation I on September 17, 2013 (78 FR 57073); however, many of the SIP-approved provisions relating to pre-construction permitting of new and modified stationary sources (called the new source review or NSR permitting program) date back to the 1990s.
On March 25, 2004 (WSR 04-08-017), PSCAA made a major overhaul of Regulation I in order to rely on the statewide NSR permitting program requirements contained in Chapter 173-400 WAC promulgated by Ecology. PSCAA's stated purpose was, “To create a more consistent notice of construction process throughout the state of Washington and to facilitate the United States Environmental Protection Agency's approval of the state implementation plan.” PSCAA created a new section 6.01 “Components of a New Source Review Program” which generally incorporates by reference the NSR permitting provisions contained in Chapter 173-400 WAC, as shown in Table 2. PSCAA also revised or repealed sections of Regulation I that were duplicative of the WAC and therefore obsolete.
WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) new source review permitting program for major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas. Regulation I, section 6.01 incorporates by reference WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750, but clearly states that only Ecology and EFSEC have authority to issue permits under WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 within PSCAA's geographic area. PSCAA has advised EPA that it incorporates by reference WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 for purposes such as working on permit coordination with Ecology, enforcing existing PSD permit conditions not yet incorporated into Title V permits, and determining violations for inspected facilities that failed to obtain the necessary PSD permits. Therefore, PSCAA is not requesting, and the EPA is not proposing to approve, the authority to issue PSD permits under WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 for PSCAA's direct permitting jurisdiction (Table 7). The EPA will retain our current approval of WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 in the SIP under Ecology and EFSEC direct permitting jurisdiction (see 40 CFR 52.2470(c), Tables 2 and 3), which will continue to apply within PSCAA's geographic area.
PSCAA also incorporates by reference WAC 173-400-800 through 173-400-860, which implement the new source review permitting program for major stationary sources in nonattainment areas (major nonattainment NSR). The EPA approved WAC 173-400-800 through 173-400-860 for Ecology's direct permitting jurisdiction on November 7, 2014 (79 FR 59653), with minor revisions to reflect updated federal citations on October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69385). In connection with our November 7, 2014 approval, we reviewed WAC 173-400-800 through 173-400-860 pursuant to the federal
Effective June 6, 1996, the Washington Legislature amended the Washington Clean Air Act (Revised Code of Washington 70.94), requiring Ecology to establish NSR permitting exemptions based on category, size, or emissions thresholds representing “. . . trivial levels of emissions that do not pose a threat to human health or the environment.” Ecology implemented this statutory change by establishing emission unit and activity exemptions under WAC 173-400-110(4), and exemptions based on emissions thresholds under WAC 173-400-110(5). The EPA approved these changes on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23721).
Unlike Ecology, PSCAA already had “trivial” emissions source category exemptions for minor NSR permitting approved as part of the SIP under Regulation I, section 6.03 (62 FR 42216, August 6, 1997). Therefore, PSCAA opted to retain its existing minor NSR source category exemptions rather than incorporate by reference WAC 173-400-110(4) and (5). While there have been numerous updates to PSCAA's source category exemptions list since the EPA's last approval, the most significant revision occurred on July 12, 2001 (WSR 01-16-034). After a review of approximately 485 emission units permitted during calendar year 2000, PSCAA revised the list of source category exemptions to better focus on the most environmentally relevant source categories. As described in the supporting documents for PSCAA's rulemaking at that time, approximately one third of the units permitted in 2000 were gas stations, dry cleaners, or concrete batch plants which are already subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements in other regulations approved into the SIP, such as Regulation II, section 2.07 “Gasoline Stations,” which significantly reduce potential emissions from such source categories to levels expected to be inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Other minor NSR source category exemptions were derived from exemptions approved into the SIP for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). “Engineering Notes for Exemption List Development,” included in the docket for this action, shows the process used by PSCAA in 2001 to update the set of minor NSR source category exemptions. Following 2001, PSCAA continued to update the set of minor NSR source category exemptions based on its evaluation and experience permitting certain source categories, including the 2012 establishment of stand-alone performance standards for rock crushing in section 9.18 that reduce potential emissions to levels expected to be inconsequential for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
We note that our prior approval of section 6.03 included a broad director's discretion provision that allowed a minor NSR exemption for, “Any source that has been determined through review by the Control Officer not to warrant a `Notice of Construction and Application for Approval', due to the minimal amount and nature of air contaminants produced and potential to contribute to air pollution, with special reference to effects on health, economic and social factors, and physical effects on property.” See 62 FR 42216, August 6, 1997. This provision, formerly in subsection (b)(17), is now in subsection (b)(10). It is the EPA's longstanding position that these types of broad director discretion provisions are not appropriate for approval into the SIP. See 69 FR 17368, 17370 (April 2, 2004); see also 80 FR 33840, 33917-33918 (June 12, 2015). PSCAA and Ecology are not seeking approval of section 6.03(b)(10) and we are proposing to correct this error from our August 1997 action. Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes EPA, upon a determination that EPA's action approving, disapproving or promulgating any SIP or plan revision (or any part thereof) was in error, to revise such action as appropriate in the same manner as the approval, disapproval or promulgation. In making such a correction, EPA must provide such determination and the basis therefore to the State and the public. EPA is by this proposal notifying the PSCAA, Ecology and the public that EPA is removing Section 6.03(b)(17) from the SIP and from incorporation by reference into federal law.
Lastly, we note that Article 6 in particular, but also other sections of PSCAA's regulations, reference the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). For all references to the CFR in the PSCAA rules proposed for approval, not otherwise specified with an effective date, our proposed approval refers to the CFR with an effective date of July 1, 2019. This date corresponds to PSCAA's last incorporation by reference of the CFR in Regulation 1, section 3.25.
On December 15, 2015 (WSR 12-01-067), PSCAA added section 3.03(f) to Regulation I, which states, “When an applicant requests a federally enforceable regulatory order to limit the potential to emit any air contaminant or contaminants pursuant to WAC 173-400-091, or requests a modification to such an order, the Control Officer or a duly authorized representative may issue such order consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-400-091 and 173-400-171 and Section 3.03(e) above. Regulatory orders issued pursuant to this section are effective the day the Control Officer or representative approves the order and may be appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board pursuant to Section 3.17 of Regulation I and RCW 43.21B.310.” We are proposing to approve this provision into the SIP because it implements authorities already approved or proposed for approval in the SIP and is consistent with CAA requirements.
As previously discussed, a local clean air agency generally has the authority under WAC 173-400-020 to establish local regulations to supplement, or act in lieu of, the statewide Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions for sources within its jurisdiction. This approach is consistent with our previous SIP actions for Benton Clean Air Agency (80 FR 71695, November 17, 2015) and Southwest Clean Air Agency (82 FR 17136, April 10, 2017). Specifically, as part of the December 20, 2019 submittal, PSCAA and Ecology requested that the EPA approve: Regulation I, section 1.01 “Policy” to replace WAC 173-400-010; section 3.04 “Reasonably Available Control Technology” to replace the corresponding provision in WAC 173-400-040(1)(c); section 3.25 “Federal Regulations Reference Date” to replace WAC 173-400-025; section 9.03 “Emission of Air Contaminant: Visual Standard” to replace WAC 173-400-040(2); section 9.07 “Sulfur Dioxide Emission Standard” to replace WAC 173-400-040(7); section 9.09 “Particulate Matter Emission Standards” to replace WAC 173-400-050 and 173-400-060; section 9.11(a) “Emission of Air Contaminant: Detriment to Person or Property” to replace WAC 173-400-040(6); section 9.13 “Emission of Air Contaminant: Concealment and Masking Restricted” to replace WAC 173-400-040(8); section 9.15 “Fugitive Dust Control Measures” to replace WAC 173-400-040(9)(a); and section 12.03 “Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems” to replace WAC 173-400-105(7).
We have completed a side by side comparison of the respective provisions and are proposing to approve these Regulation I provisions to apply in lieu of the corresponding Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions in the SIP.
Lastly, for those parts of Chapter 173-400 WAC not already incorporated by reference in section 6.01, or replaced by the corresponding Regulation I provisions discussed above, PSCAA and Ecology requested that the EPA approve into the SIP for PSCAA's jurisdiction the most recently updated versions of Chapter 173-400 WAC, with certain exceptions as shown in Table 3. For example, WAC 173-400-116 “Increment Protection” is part of the PSD program for permits issued directly by Ecology or EFSEC and, as discussed above, PSCAA does not issue such permits. PSCAA also did not request approval for WAC 173-400-036 “Relocation of Portable Sources” because this is an optional State provision that a local clean air agency may adopt if it so chooses, but is not required to adopt.
The EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—
We are also proposing to approve PSCAA's incorporation by reference of certain Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions, subject to the exceptions listed in Table 2. We note that these exceptions, primarily relating to the regulation of toxic air pollutants, are consistent with our prior approvals of Chapter 173-400 WAC for Ecology's direct permitting jurisdiction.
Table 3 shows the updated Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions that PSCAA and Ecology requested to apply within the SIP for PSCAA's jurisdiction. We note that many of the exclusions are identical to the exclusions for Ecology's direct jurisdiction; however, Table 3 also excludes those parts of the WAC explicitly replaced by the Regulation 1 provisions in Table 1. We also note that PSCAA and Ecology did not submit Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions that remain unchanged since our last approval (60 FR 28726, June 2, 1995) or recently revised WAC updates that have not yet been approved for Ecology's direct jurisdiction.
In addition to the regulations proposed for approval and incorporation by reference above, the EPA reviews and approves state and local clean air agency submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing such agency enforcement and other general authority are generally not incorporated by reference so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. On August 31, 2004, the EPA reviewed and approved Regulation I, sections 3.01, 3.05, 3.09, 3.13, 3.15, 3.17, 3.19, and 3.21 as providing PSCAA adequate enforcement and other general authority for purposes of implementing and enforcing its SIP but did not incorporate these provisions by reference (69 FR 53007). While these provisions remain unchanged since our last review and approval, we are proposing to include these sections in 40 CFR 52.2470(e),
PSCAA and Ecology's December 20, 2019 submittal included a request to remove several obsolete provisions from the SIP and to remove other provisions that are not required SIP elements under CAA section 110. As previously discussed in section II, PSCAA
Under section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA, the State, or local agencies acting in lieu of the State, must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees for permitting major sources. PSCAA is therefore submitting section 6.04 “Notice of Construction Fees” to demonstrate adequate fee authority to implement the major source nonattainment NSR program under WAC 173-400-800 through 173-400-860, as incorporated by reference. While the EPA reviews these submissions to confirm adequate authority, the EPA generally does not include local or state agency fees as part of the Washington SIP incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470(c). We are therefore proposing to correct an error from our previous approval on April 21, 1998, when the fee provisions of section 6.04 were inadvertently incorporated by reference (63 FR 19658).
Lastly, as described above regarding the applicability of WAC 173-400-020, we are removing outdated WAC provisions from our previous June 2, 1995 approval and replacing them with the updated versions of the WAC shown in Table 3 or the appropriate PSCAA corollaries as shown in Table 1.
This proposed revision to the SIP applies specifically to the PSCAA jurisdiction incorporated into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 7. As discussed in our October 3, 2014 action, local air agency jurisdiction in Washington is generally defined on a geographic basis; however, there are exceptions (79 FR 59653, at page 59654). By statute, PSCAA does not have authority for sources under the jurisdiction of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). See Revised Code of Washington Chapter 80.50. Under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-405-012, 173-410-012, and 173-415-012, PSCAA also does not have jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary aluminum plants. For these sources, Ecology retains statewide, direct jurisdiction. Ecology and EFSEC also retain statewide, direct jurisdiction for issuing PSD permits. Therefore, the EPA is not approving into 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 7 those provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC related to the PSD program. Specifically, these provisions are WAC 173-400-116 and WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750, which the EPA has already approved as applying state-wide under 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Tables 2 and 3.
As described in our April 29, 2015 action, jurisdiction to implement the visibility permitting program contained in WAC 173-400-117 varies depending on the situation. Ecology retains authority to implement WAC 173-400-117 as it relates to PSD permits. See 80 FR 23721. However, for facilities subject to major nonattainment NSR under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-400-800, incorporated by reference in Regulation I, we are proposing that PSCAA would be responsible for implementing those parts of WAC 173-400-117 as they relate to major nonattainment NSR permits. See 80 FR 23726. If finalized, the EPA is also proposing to modify the visibility protection Federal Implementation Plan contained in 40 CFR 52.2498 to reflect the approval of WAC 173-400-117 as it applies to implementation of the major nonattainment NSR program in PSCAA's jurisdiction.
Lastly, this SIP revision is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the regulations shown in the tables in section IV.A.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
As discussed above, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington, or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), as described in Section IV.D above. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated October 18, 2019.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD or the “County”) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from surface coating operations. We are proposing to conditionally approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the “Act”) and to conditionally approve the County's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, with respect to surface coating operations. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by February 27, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0423 at
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3024 or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the documents addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or the “State”).
On December 22, 2017, the submittal containing the documents listed in Table 1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. In addition to these SIP submittals, the County and the ADEQ transmitted a
We approved an earlier version of Rule 336 listed in Table 1 into the SIP on September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759). There is no previously approved version of the RACT SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the MCAQD portion of the Arizona SIP. The ADEQ previously submitted the documents in Table 1 in a SIP revision on December 19, 2016, along with the County's RACT SIP. However, this submittal did not include documentation that showed the entirety of the County's SIP revision had met the public notice requirements required for completeness under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The County's June 22, 2017 submittal was provided to address this issue, and the State withdrew the December 19, 2016 submittal on May 17, 2019.
Emissions of VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog, and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Section 182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above implement RACT for any source covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document and for any major sources of VOCs. The MCAQD is subject to this requirement as it regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303). The rule and RACT SIP in Table 1 were submitted to control VOC emissions from CTG VOC source categories of surface coating operations.
Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations; certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT; and/or negative declarations that no sources in the nonattainment area are covered by a specific CTG.
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The MCAQD regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 81.303. Therefore, these rules must implement RACT.
We are also evaluating the County's RACT SIP with respect to the source categories covered by the CTGs listed in numbers four through eleven below. Those CTG sources are regulated by Rule 336. Thus, our evaluation of the approvability of the MCAQD RACT SIP with respect to those CTG VOC source categories is dependent on the approvability of Rule 336. Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4 “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks,” EPA-450/2-77-008, May 1977.
5. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture,” EPA-450/2-77-032, December 1977.
6. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Large Appliances,” EPA-450/2-77-034, December 1977.
7. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,” EPA-450/2-78-15, June 1978.
8. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008.
9. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings,” EPA-453/R-07-005 September 2007.
10. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings,” EPA-453/R-07-003, September 2007.
11. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings,” (EPA 453/R-07-004, September 2007)
Rule 336 applies to sources of VOC emissions from surface coating operations in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. Rule 336 is as stringent as the applicable CTGs, and has requirements for surface coating operations that are generally consistent with other local air district rules for these source categories and are largely consistent with the applicable CAA requirements. However, as identified below, the rule contains deficiencies that preclude full approval. In a letter dated January 28, 2019 and modified on December 5, 2019 (the “commitment letter”), the County committed to revise those provisions in accordance with EPA guidance, and submit the revised rule within eleven months of a
The following provisions of Rule 336 do not fully satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevents full approval of Rule 336.
1. Section 300, Standards, Table 336-2 contains VOC content limits for the categories of End Sealing Compound: Food or Beverage, End Sealing Compound: Non Food, Sheet Basecoat (Interior and Exterior) and Overvarnish, Two Piece Can Interior Body Spray, Three Piece Can Interior Body Spray, Two Piece Can Exterior Base Coat Overvarnish, and Two Piece Can Exterior End (Spray or Roll Coat), which comply with the 1977 CTG, “EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks,” May 1977, but are generally significantly higher than the same limits in currently SIP-approved rules such as SCAQMD Rule 1125, Sacramento AQMD Rule 452, BAAQMD Rule 8-11, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4604. Because the lower limits have been achieved in other areas for some time, the limits in Rule 336 do not demonstrate current RACT.
2. Section 103.2 exempts Extreme Performance Coatings from the VOC limits when used on:
(a) Internal combustion engines components that are normally above 250 degrees Fahrenheit during use or
(b) items that are used at temperatures above 250 degrees Fahrenheit that are included under various NAICS codes for telecommunications equipment and are electronic products in space vehicles and/or are communications equipment.
The 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts (MMPP), 2007 Metal Furniture, and 2007 Large Appliance CTGs do not exempt Extreme Performance Coatings. In addition, Rule 336, Tables 336-1, 336-3, 336-5 contain the appropriate VOC content limits for this category and are consistent with the CTGs.
3. Section 103.5.e exempts Tactical Military-Equipment coatings that are in a District-approved permit based on a demonstration that no compliant substitute exists. The rule does not define “Tactical Military-Equipment” and the 2008 MMPP CTG does not include this exemption.
4. Rule 336 is missing the VOC limits and categories for “Motor Vehicle Materials” as is found in Table 6 Motor Vehicle Materials VOC Content Limits of the MMPP CTG. Rule 336 Table 336-4 “Coating Limits for Business Machines” is missing the VOC limits and categories for Automotive/Transportation Coatings as is found in the MMPP CTG Table 4 for “Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts VOC Content Limits.” The missing categories also do not appear in Maricopa Rule 345 Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating.
5. Section 300, Standards, Table 336-1 contains VOC limits for the category “Other Metal Parts and Products: Includes Non-Adhesive Coating, Adhesive, Adhesive Primer, Beaded Sealant, and Caulking” which does not comply with the 2008 CTG, “EPA-453/R-08-003, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings” (MMPP) September 2008. Because the limits for General One Component and General Multi Component Coatings are lower in the CTG, the limits in Rule 336 do not meet the presumptive RACT standard established in the CTG.
6. Section 300, Standards Table 336-3 contains VOC limits for “Flexible Plastic Parts and Products” as well as “Plastic Parts and Products That Are Not Defined as Flexible.” These categories are not in the 2008 MMPP CTG and contain higher VOC limits than some of the existing categories in the CTG.
The County's commitment letter included the following specific and enforceable commitments, outlined below, to address the above deficiencies for Rule 336.
1. The MCAQD commits to lower the VOC limits for the following can coating materials: End sealing compound, sheet basecoat (interior and exterior) and overvarnish, two-piece can interior body spray, three-piece can interior body spray, two-piece can exterior base coat and overvarnish, and two-piece can exterior end spray or roll coat. The lower emission limits will be consistent with current RACT, based on a comparison of RACT rules in other nonattainment areas.
Proposed VOC Limits for Coating Cans and Coils in grams VOC per liter and pounds VOC per gallon:
2. The MCAQD commits to evaluate the exemption for extreme performance coatings. Following this evaluation, the MCAQD will either remove or constrain the exemption. If a narrower exemption for extreme performance coatings is included in the revised rule, the MCAQD will provide documentation justifying the exemption is RACT.
3. The MCAQD commits to evaluate the exemption for tactical military equipment coatings. Following this evaluation, the MCAQD will either remove the exemption or require EPA approval of non-compliant military specification coatings.
4. The MCAQD commits to evaluate the CTG categories for “Motor Vehicle Materials” and “Automotive/Transportation Coatings.” Following the evaluation of each category, the MCAQD will either submit a negative declaration for the category or incorporate RACT emission limits for the category.
5. The MCAQD commits to remove adhesives and adhesive primers from the “Other Metal Parts and Products” coating category in Table 336-1 (VOC Limits for Miscellaneous Metal Part and Product Coatings). The MCAQD also commits to lower the VOC limit for the “Other Metal Parts and Products” coating category to 340 grams VOC per liter (g/L) for air dried coatings and 280 g/L for baked coatings.
6. The MCAQD commits to remove the following coating categories from Table 336-3 (VOC Limits for Miscellaneous Plastic Part and Product Coatings):
• Flexible Plastic Parts and Products (Basecoat, Clearcoat, Color Topcoat, and Primer); and
• Plastic Parts and Products that are not Defined as Flexible.
The TSD for Rule 336 describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the County modifies the rule.
Rule 336 largely fulfills the relevant CAA § 110 and part D requirements, but the deficiencies, as discussed in section C, preclude full SIP approval pursuant to 110(k)(3) of the Act. Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve SIP revisions based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year after the date of the plan approval. Because the MCAQD and the ADEQ have committed to provide the EPA with a SIP submission within one year of this final action that will include specific rule revisions that would adequately address the identified deficiencies, we are proposing to conditionally approve Rule 336 pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act. We are also proposing to conditionally approve MCAQD's RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS with respect to the VOC source categories covered by Rule 336. If the MCAQD and the ADEQ submit the required rule revisions by the specified deadline, and the EPA approves the submission, then the identified deficiencies will be cured. However, if these proposed conditional approvals are finalized, and MCAQD, through the ADEQ, fails to submit these revisions within the required timeframe, the conditional approval would be treated as a disapproval for those rules for which the revisions are not submitted (and the associated RACT SIP CTG source categories). We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until February 27, 2020. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the MCAQD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, because this proposed SIP conditional approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This proposed SIP conditional approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action proposes to conditionally approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this proposed SIP conditional approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Adoption of order.
In this document, the Media Bureau adopted an Order, granting a Motion for Extension of Time filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Sunlight Foundation, Common Cause, the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society and Issue One in MB Docket No. 19-363 (DA 19-1292).
Reply comments are due January 28, 2020.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Gary Schonman,
This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 19-1292, which was released December 18, 2019. The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
We are proposing regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 6 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan, including the 2019-2021 fishery specifications and management measures, as recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council. In addition, Framework 6 would update the overfished and overfishing definitions for the herring fishery and suspend the carryover of unharvested catch for 2020-2021. The specifications and management measures are intended to meet conservation objectives while providing sustainable levels of access to the fishery. We are also proposing updating and clarifying specific herring regulations.
Public comments must be received by February 12, 2020.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0144, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of this action, including the Environmental Assessment and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of this action, are available at:
Laura Hansen, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9225.
Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for herring are located at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K. Regulations at § 648.200 require the Council to recommend herring specifications for NMFS' review and proposal in the
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), NMFS is required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. The MSA permits NMFS to approve, partially approve, or disapprove framework adjustment measures proposed by the Council based only on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, the MSA and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Otherwise, NMFS must defer to the Council's policy choices. Under the regulations guiding the herring specifications process, NMFS must review the Council's recommended specifications and publish notice proposing specifications, clearly noting the reasons for any differences from the Council's recommendations. NMFS is proposing and seeking comment on measures to implement Framework 6 as well as specifications and river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery, consistent with the Council's recommendations.
The Northeast Fisheries Science Center has updated its schedule for stock assessments, and will now hold herring assessments every 2 years, with the next scheduled for June 2020. Accordingly, the Council and NMFS now plan to develop specifications every two years for the upcoming three-year cycle. For example, the Council and NMFS will develop herring specifications in the summer/fall of 2020 for the 2021-2023 fishing years.
In June 2018, a new stock assessment for herring was completed. The assessment concluded that although herring were not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2017, poor recruitment would likely result in a substantial decline in herring biomass over the next several years. The stock assessment estimated that recruitment was at historic lows during the most recent five years (2013-2017), but projected that biomass could increase after reaching a low in 2019 if recruitment returns to average levels. The final stock assessment summary report is available on the Center's website (
Based on the stock assessment and at the request of the Council, we reduced the 2018 ACL in August 2018 (83 FR 42450) (from 104,800 mt to 49,900 mt) and the 2019 ACL in February 2019 (84 FR 2760) (from 49,900 mt to 15,065 mt) through inseason adjustments to prevent overfishing and lower the risk of the stock becoming overfished. The ACL reduction for 2018 ensured at least a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing, while the ACL reduction for 2019 reflected the Council's risk policy for herring and was consistent with the new ABC control rule developed in Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP. The MSA requires NMFS to notify the Council if the status of fishery has become overfished or is approaching the condition of being overfished. According to the Act, “a fishery shall be classified as approaching a condition of being overfished if, based on trends in fishing effort, fishery resource size, and other appropriate factors, the Secretary estimates that the fishery will become overfished within two years.” Within 2 years of such notifications, the Council shall prepare an action to prevent overfishing from occurring. In February 2019, we notified the Council that herring was approaching an overfished condition.
At its June 2019 meeting, the Council recommended maintaining status quo catch limits for 2019 and reducing catch limits for 2020 and 2021 (see Table 1). This rule proposes herring specifications for 2019-2021 consistent with the Council's recommendations. These specifications are intended to provide for a sustainable herring fishery and to be consistent with the Council's harvest policy for herring. Although the 2019 fishing year has ended, the Herring FMP requires NMFS to set the specifications for the herring fishery for 3 years after consideration of the Council's recommendations. The Council's Framework 6 document fully analyzes maintaining status quo 2019 specifications for the remainder of that fishing year. Although this action would reaffirm the 2019 specifications implemented in the inseason action that published in February 2019, this rule focuses on the 2020-2021 specifications.
Several factors contributed to the Council's ABC recommendations for 2020-2021. The ABC is reduced from the OFL to account for scientific uncertainty. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Council determined that a conservative method of management, specifically one that accounts for scientific uncertainty, was essential due to the current status of the herring stock and the uncertainty surrounding estimates of biomass and recruitment. In September 2018, the Council adopted Amendment 8, which included a new ABC control rule intended to reduce the available harvest to explicitly account for herring's role as forage in the ecosystem. As with the 2019 ABC, the 2020 ABC was developed consistent with the Council's harvest policy for herring in the new control rule. For 2021, the SSC was uncomfortable with increasing the ABC based on the recent assessment's projection that recruitment would increase from historical lows to average levels. Therefore, the SSC and Council recommended maintaining the 2020 ABC for 2021. The 2020 stock assessment is expected to update recruitment information and allow the Council to reconsider the 2021 ABC for the next specifications.
The ACL is reduced from ABC to account for management uncertainty. Currently, although the FMP allows for consideration of other aspects of management uncertainty (
Border transfer is a processing allocation available to Canadian dealers that is included in, and does not reduce, the domestic catch limits. The MSA provides for the issuance of permits to Canadian vessels transporting U.S. harvested herring to Canada for sardine processing. The Council recommended 100 mt for border transfer for 2020 and 2021. The amount specified for border has equaled 4,000 mt since 2000, but we reduced it to 0 mt as part of the 2019 inseason adjustment. The Council recommended 100 mt for border transfer in case there continues to be Canadian interest in transporting herring for sardine processing.
The Council recommended maintaining status quo river herring/shad catch caps for 2020-2021 (see Table 2). These catch caps were originally set for the fishery in the 2016-2018 specifications, and we maintained them in the inseason adjustment for 2019. Catch is tracked against river herring/shad catch caps on trips landing more than 6,600 lb (3,000 kg) of herring. Once a catch cap is reached, the possession limit for herring vessels using that gear type and fishing in that area (or the corresponding catch cap closure area) is reduced to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring for the remainder of the fishing year. These caps are intended to meet the original catch cap goals to provide a strong incentive for the herring fleet to continue to reduce river herring and shad catch, while allowing the fleet to fully harvest the herring ACL.
The Council recommended status quo methods to set all other herring specifications, including the management area sub-ACLs, fixed gear set-aside, and research set-aside.
Framework 6 would update the “overfished” and “overfishing” definitions to make them more
Over time, the parameters used to assess the herring stock have changed, and so have the corresponding projections used to evaluate stock status and set catch levels. The updated definition is more flexible because it could incorporate any estimate of biomass that is warranted (total biomass, SSB, or relevant proxy), dependent on what is used in the stock assessment and considered the best available science. The new definitions are consistent with many overfishing and overfished definitions used in the region, as well as parameters in the new ABC control rule developed in Amendment 8.
Currently, regulations at § 648.201 require that up to 10 percent of the unharvested catch in a herring management area shall be carried over and added to that area's sub-ACL for the fishing year following when total catch is determined. For example, total catch for 2018 would be determined in 2019. If there was unharvested catch in 2018, the unharvested catch in a management area (up to 10 percent of the initial sub-ACL for that area) would be added to the area's sub-ACL for 2020. This carryover increases the sub-ACL for that management area, but it does not increase the total ACL.
Under Framework 6, carryover of unharvested catch would be suspended for the 2020 and 2021, such that unharvested catch in 2018 and 2019 would not be added to sub-ACLs for 2020 and 2021, respectively. Suspending carryover is proposed because the amount of carryover from 2018 (just under 5,000 mt) is substantial relative to the ACL for 2020 and 2021 (11,571 mt), and could have unintended consequences on the stock or fishery. For example, if carryover is harvested in specific management areas early in the year, other areas that are typically fished later in the year may be constrained by the ACL such that the sub-ACLs in those areas cannot be fully harvested. To date, catch in 2019 is less than 85 percent of the ACL for 2019 (15,065 mt), so there may also be a substantial amount of unharvested catch that would have otherwise been carried over relative to the reduced ACL for 2021 (11,571 mt). Furthermore, given the low estimate of herring biomass, concentrating fishing effort and catch in certain management areas may have negative impacts on the herring stock. Continuation of the suspension of carryover into 2021 is consistent with the Council's conservative management due to the current status of the herring stock and the uncertainty surrounding estimates of biomass and recruitment.
We are proposing the following clarifications to regulations for fisheries of the Northeastern United States under the authority of section 305(d) to the MSA, which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to carry out an FMP or the MSA.
First, in §§ 648.4, 648.7, 648.10, 648.11, 648.14, 648.15, 648.80, 648.201, 648.202, 648.204, and 648.205, this rule proposes simplifying the names of herring vessel permits. Currently, each herring vessel permit has two names used in regulations, the first name specifies the permit type (
Second, this rule proposes clarifying the transiting and pre-landing prohibitions for the herring fishery in § 648.14. This rule would clarify that vessels are prohibited from transiting Area 1A during June through September with midwater gear onboard, unless gear is properly stowed and not available for immediate use, consistent with § 648.2. This rule would also clarify that herring vessels are required to notify NMFS of offloading through the vessel monitoring system of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hours prior to landing or, if fishing ends less than 6 hours before landing, as soon as the vessel stops catching fish. Both of these clarifications currently exist elsewhere in the regulations and this rule would update regulations in § 648.14 accordingly.
Third, this rule proposes updating terminology in § 648.200. This rule would update the definition of OY consistent with new National Standard guidance for OY. This rule would also update terminology to reflect that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission's) Herring Section is now a Herring Board and that the Commission's Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team is now a Technical Committee.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Herring FMP, national standards and other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law.
This proposed rule has been preliminarily determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule would have on small entities, including small businesses, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The IRFA includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see
A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
For the purposes of this analysis, ownership entities are defined by those entities with common ownership personnel as listed on permit application documentation. Permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as a single entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven personnel listed as co-owners on their application paperwork, those seven personnel form one ownership entity, covering those five permits. If one or several of the seven owners also own additional vessels, with sub-sets of the original seven personnel or with new co-owners, those ownership arrangements are deemed to be separate ownership entities for the purpose of this analysis.
This rule would affect all permitted herring vessels; therefore, a directly regulated entity is a firm that owns at least one herring permit. There are many businesses that hold an open-access (Category D) permit. These businesses catch a small fraction of herring; furthermore, they are minimally affected by the regulations. Firms are defined as active in the herring fishery if they landed any herring in 2018. This section describes the directly regulated small entities in four classes: All permitted firms; all active firms; limited access permitted firms; and active limited access permitted firms.
In 2018, there were 1,205 firms (1,193 small) that held at least one herring permit. There were 62 (60 small) active firms that held at least one herring permit. There were 68 (62 small) firms that held at least one limited access permit, 31 (29 small) of which were active. Small entity limited access permit holders as a whole derived approximately 38 percent of total entity revenue from the herring fishery. All small entity herring permit holders as a whole derived approximately 29 percent of total entity revenue from the herring fishery.
Alternative 1 (no action) serves as a baseline as it would maintain the ACL from fishing year 2019 in 2020 and 2021 and would make no changes to the management uncertainty buffers. This analysis focuses on the ACL alternatives as the other specification alternatives would have minimal impacts on firms participating in the fishery. The proposed action would decrease the ACL in 2020 and 2021 from the baseline, as presented in Table 3.
To examine effects of the preferred alternative this analysis assumes catch is equal to ACL. Recent catch from the four herring management areas has frequently been below the ACL and sub-ACLs. However, recent ACLs have been much higher than the Council's preferred ACL and portions of the fishery have been restricted due to catch of non-target species (
Seventeen small entities, mainly purse seine vessels, fished for herring in Area 1A in 2018. Ten of these small entities derived 30 percent or less of total entity revenue from Area 1A. Seven small entities derived more than 80 percent of total entity revenue from Area 1A. Area 1A generate revenue for more small entities than any other area; all other areas only have 3 entities deriving more than 80 percent of revenue from herring. Nine small entities fished for herring in Area 1B in 2018, with 5 entities deriving 30 percent or less from the area and 4 entities deriving between 70 and 100 percent from 1B. Thirty-nine small entities fished for herring in Area 2 in 2018. Twenty-seven of them derived between 0 and 1 percent of total entity revenue from Area 2, and another 6 entities derived less than 30 percent of entity revenue from Area 2. Four entities derived between 70 and 100 percent of total entity revenue from herring in Area 2. Finally, 8 small entities fished for herring in Area 3 in 2018. Four of those entities derived less than 30 percent of total entity revenue from Areas 3 and 4 entities derived between 70 and 100 percent of total entity revenue from Area 3.
While the overall fishery ACL will decline by 23 percent, NMFS does not expect that each of these small entities will have a 23-percent reduction in herring revenue. Rather, because of the low catch limits, some companies may decide not to fish for herring in 2020 and 2021 and would lose 100 percent of revenue from herring. If this happens, the remaining small entities who fish for herring in 2020 and 2021 may realize less than 23-percent reduction in revenue from herring, as there may be fewer vessels herring fishing. Because entities that catch herring are also active in other fisheries, the reduction in total revenue for small entities would likely be less than the reduction in herring revenue. Without being able to predict these specific shifts, Table 5 estimates the percent change for small entities in total revenue resulting from a 23-percent reduction in the herring ACL.
This proposed rule does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
This rule proposes herring specifications for 2019-2021, consistent with the Herring FMP's objectives of preventing overfishing while maximizing social and economic benefits. Non-preferred alternatives would likely not accomplish these objectives for this action as well as the proposed action.
Alternative 1 (no action) exceeds the catch limit recommendations of the SSC and the Council. Alternative 1 is not expected to result in overfishing, but it has a higher likelihood of resulting in overfishing than either the proposed action (Alternative 2a) or Alternative 2b (non-preferred). Given the uncertainty around the stock assessment's estimates of herring biomass and recruitment, the Council and NMFS did not select Alternative 1 as the proposed action because of its higher risk of overfishing. The Council and NMFS determined that implementing lower catch limits in the short-term is important to reduce the serious adverse long-term biological and socioeconomic impacts that could occur if higher limits are implemented.
Alternative 2b used the same process to develop the OFL and ABC as Alternative 2a, but it incorporated an updated estimate of 2018 catch. The updated estimate of 2018 catch used to develop Alternative 2b was about 5,000 mt higher than the 2018 catch estimate used to develop the Alternative 2a (proposed action). The Council decided to include the updated catch estimate in a separate alternative (Alternative 2b), so that the most recent estimate of 2018 catch could be considered, even though the updated catch estimate was not available when the SSC met to make ABC recommendations for the 2019-2021. When the 2018 estimate of catch is increased by about 5,000 mt, it results in lowered OFL and ABC for 2020 and 2021 compared to Alternative 2a. The Council did not recommend Alternative 2b for several reasons. First, the SSC did not have the opportunity to weigh in on this alternative, as the final 2018 numbers were not available when the SSC met and made their recommendations in October 2018. In addition, Alternative 2b included a lower ABC and ACL than the proposed action. Given the negative economic impacts to the herring industry and other stakeholders are already expected to be substantial with Alternative 2a, the Council and NMFS determined that the additional small reduction in the risk of overfishing (1-percent risk with Alternative 2b instead of a 2-percent risk with Alternative 2a) did not warrant a further reduction in available catch and associated revenue.
This rule is also proposing changes to the overfished and overfishing definitions, suspending carryover of unharvested catch, and clarifying existing regulations. The changes to overfished and overfishing definitions and clarifications to existing regulations are not expected to have direct economic impacts on small entities. Suspending carryover of unharvested catch would reduce available herring catch and the associated revenue in the short-term, but is expected to have a low positive impact on small entities in the long-term. The amount of carryover from 2018 (just under 5,000 mt) is substantial relative to the ACL for 2020 and 2021 (11,571 mt), and could have unintended consequences on the stock or fishery. For example, if carryover is harvested in specific management areas early in the year, other areas that are typically fished later in the year may be constrained by the ACL such that the sub-ACLs in those areas cannot be fully harvested. To date, catch in 2019 is less than 85 percent of the ACL for 2019 (15,065 mt), so there may also be a substantial amount of unharvested catch that would have otherwise been carried over relative to the reduced ACL for 2021 (11,571 mt). Additionally, given the low estimate of herring biomass, concentrating fishing effort and catch in certain management areas could have negative impacts on the herring stock. Continuation of the suspension of carryover into 2021 is consistent the Council's conservative management due to the current status of the herring stock and the uncertainty surrounding estimates of biomass and recruitment. For these reasons, Alternative 1 (no action) would not meet the stated objective of this action, lowering the risk of overfishing and providing for a sustainable herring fishery, compared to suspending carryover for 2020 and 2021 under the proposed action.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(10) * * *
(ii)
(iv)
(
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
(
(v)
(A) A Category D Herring Permit (
(B) A Category E Herring Permit (
(b) * * *
(2)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) * * *
(8) A vessel issued a limited access herring permit (
(m)
(2) A vessel issued a limited access herring permit (
(m)
(iv) If a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit slips catch for any of the reasons described in paragraph (m)(4)(i) of this section, the vessel operator must move at least 15 nm (27.78 km) from the location of the slippage event before deploying any gear again, and must stay at least 15 nm (27.78 km) away from the slippage event location for the remainder of the fishing trip.
(v) If catch is slipped by a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit for any reason not described in paragraph (m)(4)(i) of this section, the vessel operator must immediately terminate the trip and return to port. No fishing activity may occur during the return to port.
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Any haddock, and up to 100 lb (45 kg) of other regulated NE multispecies other than haddock, were harvested by a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or a vessel issued a Category C and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear, pursuant to the requirements in § 648.80(d) and (e), and such fish are not sold for human consumption.
(r) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi)
(vii) * * *
(D) Transit Area 1A from June 1 through September 30 with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring while having on board midwater trawl gear that is not properly stowed or available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(E) Discard haddock at sea that has been brought on deck, or pumped into the hold, of a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or on a trip with a vessel issued a Category C and/or Category D or E Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear, pursuant to the requirements in § 648.80(d) and (e).
(viii) * * *
(B) Fail to notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement through VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hours prior to landing or, if fishing ends less than 6 hours before landing, as soon as the vessel stops catching fish, if a vessel has been issued a limited access herring permit or a Category E Herring Permit or has declared an Atlantic herring carrier trip via VMS.
(C) Fail to declare via VMS into the herring fishery by entering the appropriate herring fishery code and appropriate gear code prior to leaving port at the start of each trip to harvest, possess, or land herring, if a vessel has been issued a Limited Access Herring Permit or issued a Category E Herring Permit or is intending to act as an Atlantic herring carrier.
(2)
(i) Sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer haddock or other regulated NE multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, white hake, and Atlantic wolffish); or attempt to sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer haddock or other regulated NE multispecies for human consumption; if the regulated NE multispecies are landed by a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(ii) Fail to comply with requirements for herring processors/dealers that handle individual fish to separate out, and retain, for at least 12 hours, all haddock offloaded from a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit that fished on a declared herring trip regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(iii) Sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer; or attempt to sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer; to another person, any haddock or other regulated NE multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, white hake, and Atlantic wolffish) separated out from a herring catch offloaded from a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit that fished on a declared herring trip regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(iv) While operating as an at-sea herring processor, fail to comply with requirements to separate out and retain all haddock offloaded from a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit that fished on a declared herring trip regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(v) Fish with midwater trawl gear in any Northeast Multispecies Closed Area, as defined in § 648.81(a)(3) through (5) and (c)(3) and (4), without a NMFS-approved observer on board, if the vessel has been issued an Atlantic herring permit.
(vi) Slip or operationally discard catch, as defined at § 648.2, unless for one of the reasons specified at § 648.202(b)(2), if fishing any part of a tow inside the Northeast Multispecies Closed Areas, as defined at § 648.81(a)(3) through (5) and (c)(3) and (4).
(vii) Fail to immediately leave the Northeast Multispecies Closed Areas or comply with reporting requirements after slipping catch or operationally discarding catch, as required by § 648.202(b)(4).
(viii) Slip catch, as defined at § 648.2, unless for one the reasons specified at § 648.11(m)(4)(i).
(ix) For vessels with Category A or B Herring Permits, fail to move 15 nm (27.78 km), as required by § 648.11(m)(4)(iv) and § 648.202(b)(4)(iv).
(x) For vessels with Category A or B Herring Permits, fail to immediately return to port, as required by § 648.11(m)(4)(v) and § 648.202(b)(4)(iv).
(xi) Fail to complete, sign, and submit a Released Catch Affidavit as required by § 648.11(m)(8)(iii) and § 648.202(b)(4)(ii).
(xii) Fail to report or fail to accurately report a slippage event on the Atlantic herring daily VMS catch report, as required by § 648.11(m)(4)(iii) and § 648.202(b)(4)(iii). (xiii) For vessels with Category A or B Herring Permits, fail to comply with industry-funded monitoring requirements at § 648.11(m).
(xiv) For a vessel with a Category A or B Herring Permit, fail to comply with its NMFS-approved vessel monitoring plan requirements, as described at § 648.11(m).
(d)
(2) All haddock separated out and retained is subject to reporting requirements specified at § 648.7.
(e)
(d) * * *
(4) The vessel does not fish for, possess or land NE multispecies, except that a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit and fishing on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, may possess and land haddock and other regulated multispecies consistent with the catch caps and possession restrictions in § 648.86(a)(3) and (k). Such haddock or other regulated NE multispecies may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for, or intended for, human consumption. Haddock or other regulated NE multispecies that are separated out from the herring catch pursuant to § 648.15(d) may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for any purpose. A vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, may not discard haddock that has been brought on the deck or pumped into the hold;
(5) To fish for herring under this exemption, a vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, or a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and/or a Category D or E Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined in § 648.200(f)(1) and (3), must provide notice of the following information to NMFS at least 72 hours prior to beginning any trip into these areas for the purposes of observer deployment: Vessel name; contact name for coordination of observer deployment; telephone number for contact; the date, time, and port of departure; and whether the vessel intends to engage in fishing in Closed Area I, as defined in § 648.81(c)(3), at any point in the trip; and
(6) A vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip with midwater trawl gear, or a vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined at § 648.200(f)(1) and (3), must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement through VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hours prior to landing or, if fishing ends less than 6 hours before landing, as soon as the vessel stops catching fish. The Regional Administrator may adjust the prior notification minimum time through publication of a notice in the
(e) * * *
(4) The vessel does not fish for, possess, or land NE multispecies, except that vessels that have a Category A or B Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip may possess and land haddock or other regulated species consistent with possession restrictions in § 648.86(a)(3) and (k), respectively. Such haddock or other regulated multispecies may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for, or intended for, human consumption. Haddock or other regulated species that are separated out from the herring catch pursuant to § 648.15(d) may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for any purpose. A vessel issued a Category A or B Herring Permit may not discard haddock that has been brought on the deck or pumped into the hold;
(5) To fish for herring under this exemption, vessels that have a Category A or B Herring Permit must provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name; contact name for coordination of observer deployment; telephone number for contact; and the date, time, and port of departure, at least 72 hours prior to beginning any trip into these areas for the purposes of observer deployment; and
(6) All vessels that have a Category A or B Herring Permit must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement through VMS of the time and place of offloading
(b) * * *
(4) Vessels that have a Category A or B Herring Permit may possess and land haddock and other regulated species that are smaller than the minimum size specified under § 648.83, consistent with the bycatch caps specified in §§ 648.86(a)(3) and 648.86(k). Such fish may not be sold for human consumption.
(a) * * *
(3)(i)
(ii)
(k)
(a) The Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) shall meet at least every 3 years, but no later than July of the year before new specifications are implemented, with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Atlantic Herring Technical Committee (TC) to develop and recommend the following specifications for a period of 3 years for consideration by the New England Fishery Management Council's Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee: Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), Annual Catch Limit (ACL), Optimum yield (OY), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), U.S. at-sea processing (USAP), border transfer (BT), the sub-ACL for each management area, including seasonal periods as specified at § 648.201(d) and modifications to sub-ACLs as specified at § 648.201(f), the amount to be set aside for the RSA (from 0 to 3 percent of the sub-ACL from any management area), and river herring and shad catch caps, as specified in § 648.201(a)(4). Recommended specifications shall be presented to the New England Fishery Management Council.
(1) The PDT shall meet with the Commission's TC to review the status of the stock and the fishery and prepare a Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report at least every 3 years. The Herring PDT will meet at least once during interim years to review the status of the stock relative to the overfishing definition if information is available to do so. When conducting a 3-year review and preparing a SAFE Report, the PDT/TC will recommend to the Council/Commission any necessary adjustments to the specifications for the upcoming 3 years.
(2) If the Council determines, based on information provided by the PDT/TC or other stock-related information, that the specifications should be adjusted during the 3-year time period, it can do so through the same process outlined in this section during one or both of the interim years.
(b) * * *
(1) OFL must be equal to catch resulting from applying the maximum fishing mortality threshold to a current or projected estimate of stock size. When the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, this is the fishing rate supporting maximum sustainable yield (F
(c) The Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee shall review the recommendations of the PDT and shall consult with the Commission's Herring Board. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received, the Herring Oversight Committee shall recommend to the Council appropriate specifications for a 3-year period. The Council shall review these recommendations and, after considering public comment, shall recommend appropriate 3-year specifications to NMFS. NMFS shall review the recommendations, consider any comments received from the Commission, and publish notification in the
(a) * * *
(2) When the Regional Administrator has determined that the GOM and/or GB incidental catch cap for haddock in § 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(D) has been caught, no vessel issued a Federal Atlantic herring permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear in the applicable Accountability Measure (AM) Area,
(g)
(2) Carryover of unharvested catch as described in § 648.201(g) shall not be added to any herring management area's sub-ACL in the 2020 and 2021 herring fishing years.
(h) If NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed less than 2,942 mt of herring through October 1, NMFS will subtract 1,000 mt from management uncertainty and reallocate that 1,000 mt to the ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL. NMFS will notify the Council of this adjustment and publish the adjustment in the
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) Comply with the measures to address slippage specified in § 648.11(m)(4)(iv) and (v) if the vessel was issued a Category A or B Herring Permit.
(a) A vessel must be issued and possess a valid Category A, B, C, or E Herring Permit (as defined in § 648.4(a)(10)(iv) and (v)) to fish for, possess, or land more than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of Atlantic herring from any herring management area in the EEZ. A vessel must abide by any harvest restriction specified in § 648.201 that has been implemented.
(1) A vessel issued a Category A Herring Permit may fish for, possess, or land Atlantic herring with no possession restriction from any of the herring management areas defined in § 648.200(f), provided none of the accountability measures or harvest restrictions specified in § 648.201 have been implemented.
(2) A vessel issued only a Category B Herring Permit may fish for, possess, or land Atlantic herring with no possession restriction only from Area 2 or Area 3, as defined in § 648.200(f), provided none of the accountability measures or harvest restrictions specified in § 648.201 have been implemented. Such a vessel may fish in Area 1 only if issued a Category C or D Herring Permit, and only as authorized by the respective permit.
(3) A vessel issued a Category C Herring Permit may fish for, possess, or land up to, but no more than, 55,000 lb (25 mt) of Atlantic herring in any calendar day, and is limited to one landing of herring per calendar day, from any management area defined in § 648.200(f), provided none of the accountability measures or harvest restrictions specified in § 648.201 have been implemented.
(4) A vessel issued a Category D Herring Permit may fish for, possess, or land up to, but no more than, 6,600 lb (3 mt) of Atlantic herring from any herring management area per trip, and is limited to one landing of herring per calendar day, provided none of the accountability measures or harvest restrictions specified in § 648.201 have been implemented.
(5) A vessel issued a Category E Herring Permit may fish for, possess, or land up to, but no more than, 20,000 lb (9 mt) of Atlantic herring from only Area 2 or Area 3, as defined in § 648.200(f), per trip, and is limited to one landing of herring per calendar day, provided none of the accountability measures or harvest restrictions specified in § 648.201 have been implemented.
(6) A vessel issued a herring permit may possess herring roe provided that the carcasses of the herring from which it came are not discarded at sea.
The owner or operator any vessel issued a Category A, B, C, or E Herring Permit, with the exception of fixed gear fishermen, must install and operate a VMS unit consistent with the requirements of § 648.9. The VMS unit must be installed on board, and must be operable before the vessel may begin fishing. Atlantic herring carrier vessels are not required to have VMS. (See § 648.10(m) for VMS notification requirements.)
January 29, 2020, 1:00 p.m. EDT.
U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.
Open to the public.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on Wednesday, January 29, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 910. The Board will discuss open investigations, the status of audits from the Office of the Inspector General, and financial and organizational updates. The Board plans to release a new safety video focusing on the 2017 fatal hot work incident at the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) facility in Deridder, LA.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.
A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference:
Audience members should use the following dial-in numbers to join the conference:
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating incidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.
Hillary Cohen, Communications Manager, at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Florida Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a public meeting on Thursday February 27, 2020, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Eastern Time, to hear testimony regarding voting rights in Florida.
The meeting will be held on Thursday February 27, 2020, from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Embassy Suites Orlando, Lake Buena Vista South, 4955 Kyngs Heath Road, Kissimmee, FL 34746
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
This meeting is open to the public. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. To request individual accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend, please contact the Regional Programs Unit at 312-353-8311 at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604 within 30 days following the meeting. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or may be emailed to Carolyn Allen at
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Request for public comments and notice of a roundtable discussion on energy and other infrastructure opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean under the
The International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce seeks individual comments from industry on government programs aimed at catalyzing U.S. private sector participation in commercial opportunities in energy and other infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Through this notice, ITA announces a request for written public comments and announces a roundtable discussion with industry representatives and U.S. government staff. This notice serves as an initial step in improving ITA's understanding of private sector interests and programmatic and policy needs in energy and other infrastructure sectors in the LAC region under the new
For alternatives to online or mail submissions, please contact Christian Herman, International Trade Specialist, ITA, at (202) 482-5430
In 2018, the government of the United States launched the
The Department seeks individual input and views at the February 20, 2020 roundtable regarding the LAC region, including the following topics:
• The principal foreign regulatory and policy barriers to growing sales and exports to the LAC region and how to prioritize these barriers for USG engagement.
• The principal foreign barriers to investment in the energy and infrastructure sectors in LAC countries.
• The challenges U.S. companies face in seeking and/or providing competitive financing for projects in the LAC region.
• Proactive solutions or actions that the U.S. government could pursue that would have an impact on catalyzing U.S. private sector participation in commercial opportunities in LAC.
• Insights from working with USG agencies—such as State, Commerce, Treasury, Energy, USTDA, EXIM, OPIC, USAID—in doing business in LAC, including assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. government tools to promote U.S. businesses in the energy and infrastructure sectors in LAC countries.
To attend, participants should submit the below information to
Applicants are encouraged to send representatives at a sufficiently senior level to be knowledgeable about their organization's capabilities, interests and challenges in the LAC region.
Registrations should include the following information in their registration email:
• Name of attendee and short bio.
• Organization and brief organization description.
• A statement self-certifying how the organization meets each of the following criteria:
1. It is not majority owned by a foreign government entity (or entities).
2. Its existing products or services are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have demonstrable U.S. content as a percentage of the value of the finished product or service and/or it is a major investor in projects in LAC in which companies with such products may compete.
3. It has already exported from the United States to or invested in the LAC region.
4. In the case of a trade association, academic or research institution, the applicant will only be representing companies during the roundtable that satisfy each of the criteria above.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Suitability of the company's (or in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') existing products or services to commercial opportunities in the energy and infrastructure sectors in the LAC region.
• Suitability of the company's (or in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') experience pursuing commercial opportunities in the LAC region.
• Suitability of the representative's position and biography to be able to engage in the conversation.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this expedited sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar
Applicable January 28, 2020.
Charlotte Baskin-Gerwitz, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4880.
On November 6, 2014, Commerce published the countervailing duty order on rebar from Turkey in the
On October 30, 2019, Commerce received adequate substantive responses to the
On November 22, 2019, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.
The merchandise covered by the
The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Pursuant to the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 (EAPA), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a covered merchandise referral from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in connection with a CBP EAPA investigation concerning the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (China). In accordance with EAPA, Commerce intends to determine whether the merchandise subject to the referral is covered by the scope of this order and promptly transmit its determination to CBP. Commerce is providing notice of the referral and inviting participation from interested parties.
Applicable January 28, 2020.
Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5760.
On February 24, 2016, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 was signed into law, which contains Title IV—Prevention of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (short title “Enforce and Protect Act of 2015” or “EAPA”) (Pub. L. 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, 155, Feb. 24, 2016). Effective August 22, 2016, section 421 of the EAPA added section 517 to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), which establishes a formal process for CBP to investigate allegations of the evasion of antidumping duty and/or countervailing duty orders. Section 517(b)(4)(A) of the Act provides that if, during the course of an EAPA investigation, CBP is unable to determine whether the merchandise at issue is covered merchandise within the meaning of section 517(a)(3) of the Act, it shall refer the matter to Commerce to make such a determination. Section 517(a)(3) of the Act defines covered merchandise as merchandise that is subject to an antidumping duty order issued under section 736 of the Act or a countervailing duty order issued under section 706 of the Act. Section 517(b)(4)(B) of the Act states that Commerce, after receiving a covered merchandise referral from CBP, shall determine whether the merchandise is covered merchandise and promptly transmit its determination to CBP. The Act does not establish a deadline within which Commerce must issue its determination.
On September 26, 2019, Commerce received a covered merchandise referral from CBP regarding CBP EAPA Investigation No. 7250,
In addition, on September 6, 2019, Lyke requested a scope ruling with respect to certain diamond sawblades that Lyke imported from Thailand.
Commerce is hereby notifying interested parties that it has received the covered merchandise referral referenced above and will begin a new segment of the proceeding by initiating a scope inquiry concerning the merchandise imported by Lyke that were supplied by Like Thailand, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(b). Based on our finding in that scope inquiry, we intend to notify CBP as to whether the merchandise subject to the referral is covered merchandise within the meaning of
Additionally, Commerce intends to provide interested parties with the opportunity to participate in this segment of the proceeding, including through the submission of comments, and, if appropriate, new factual information and verification. Specifically, Commerce will notify parties on the segment-specific service list for this segment of the proceeding of a schedule for comments. In addition, Commerce may request factual information from any party to assist in making its determination, including soliciting information directly from Lyke and Like Thailand to conduct our analysis, and may verify submissions of factual information, if Commerce determines that such verification is appropriate. Commerce intends to issue a final determination within 120 days of the publication of this notice (this deadline may be extended if it is not practicable to complete the final determination within 120 days) and will promptly transmit its final determination to CBP in accordance with section 517(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
Commerce may consider conducting a separate anti-circumvention inquiry regarding the merchandise described in CBP's covered merchandise referral, if parties submit the necessary information addressing the criteria for an anti-circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781 of the Act. Interested parties are requested to file such comments and information onto the record of this proceeding within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Interested parties that wish to participate in the scope inquiry being initiated now, and receive notice of the final determination, must submit their letters of appearance as discussed below. Further, any party desiring access to business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding must file an application for access to business proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO), as discussed below.
Finally, we note that scope inquiries initiated in response to a CBP covered merchandise referral are a new type of proceeding at Commerce.
For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Interested parties that wish to participate in this segment of the proceeding and be added to the public service list for this segment of the proceeding must file a letter of appearance in accordance with 19 CFR 351.103(d)(1), with one exception: The parties publicly identified by CBP in the covered merchandise referral (referenced above) are not required to submit a letter of appearance, and will be added to the public service list for this segment of the proceeding by Commerce.
Within 24 hours of this notice being signed, Commerce placed a request for an APO segment on the record
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under the APO in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to this segment of the proceeding, with one exception: APO applicants representing the parties that have been identified by CBP as an importer in the covered merchandise referral (referenced above) are exempt from the additional filing requirements for importers pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(d).
The products covered by the order are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of the order are semi-finished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).
Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the order.
Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS,
The tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 27, 2020.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Angela James, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a modified System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is modifying an existing System of Records, Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS), DPR 34 DoD, by changing the system name and number to the Defense Civilian Human Resource Management System (DCHRMS), DHRA 23 DoD. The DCHRMS serves as the Department's enterprise civilian human resources (HR) automated system and supports one-third of the Federal work force. The Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service will manage the development, deployment, and administration of the DCHRMS operation. DCHRMS' operational activities will include the processing of all personnel transactions, position management, providing workforce analysis and reporting for the DoD and external government agencies, support for health insurance programs, managing benefits, performance management and reporting certification and training. DCHRMS will support the entire civilian HR life cycle, with transactions and information reflecting acquiring, assigning, training and development, sustaining and managing HR compensation, managing organizations, supporting benefits management, and separation or termination of civilian personnel.
This System of Records modification is effective upon publication; however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before February 27, 2020. The Routine
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Ms. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20311-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.
The OSD is modifying this System of Records by changing the following sections: System name and number, system location, system manager(s), authority for maintenance of the system, purpose(s) of the system, categories of records in the system, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, records source categories, routine uses, and notification procedures.
DCPDS is migrating to new software, a service/cloud based human capital management system, which will be referred to as DCHRMS. The DCHRMS implementation supports the 2018 President's Management Agenda Key Driver of Transformation to “Build and maintain more modern, secure, and resilient information technology to enhance mission delivery and productivity” while potentially reducing costs by minimizing variations from standard processes and design, increasing efficiencies, and enhancing customer satisfaction. The DCHRMS system will streamline and standardize personnel processes, such as hiring, reducing time, effort, and costs for the Department and users. The Software as a Service Cloud implementation will also provide more security as a single record source by eliminating duplicate record storage. Building a more modern, secure, and resilient system will enhance productivity and customer satisfaction. This includes an employee self-service system providing a single, comprehensive transactional record for civilian employees, resulting in more efficient and streamlined HR processes.
The OSD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on November 22, 2019, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 to OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).
Defense Civilian Human Resource Management System (DCHRMS), DHRA 23 DoD.
Unclassified.
Equinix Data Center, 1945 Lunt Avenue, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007; Secondary address: QTS Data Center, 44874 Moran Road, Sterling, VA 20166.
Director, Enterprise Solutions and Integration Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 06E22, Arlington, VA 22350-6000, Email:
5 U.S.C. Chapter 11, Office of Personnel Management; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 13, Special Authority; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 29, Commissions, Oaths, Records, and Reports; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Authority for Employment; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 33, Examination, Selection, and Placement; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41, Training; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43, Performance Appraisal; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 51, Classification; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Pay Rates and Systems; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 55, Pay Administration; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 61, Hours of Work; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 63, Leave; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 72, Antidiscrimination; Right to Petition Congress; 5 U.S.C. 7201, Antidiscrimination Policy; minority recruitment program; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75, Adverse Actions; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 83, Retirement; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 84, Federal Employees' Retirement System, Antidiscrimination Policy; minority recruitment program; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; E.O. 9830, Amending the Civil Service Rules and Providing for Federal Personnel Administration, as amended; 29 CFR part 1614.601, EEO Group Statistics; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
Data within DCHRMS is used to maintain a System of Records providing human resource information and system support for the DoD civilian workforce worldwide that manages the HR processing and reporting, including position, compensation and benefits, and performance management, as well as create efficiencies in Human Capital Management. Data within the Corporate Management Information System data warehouse is also used for analysis in order to meet Congressional and Federal reporting requirements.
Civilian employees and job applicants selected for civilian appropriated/non-appropriated fund (NAF), local nationals, and National Guard civilian technician positions in the DoD.
Personal information including name, date of birth, place of birth, citizenship, gender, marital status, DoD identification number (DoD ID), Social Security Number (SSN), employee number, emergency contact information (contact person's name, home phone, work phone, cell phone, email address), employee work email address, employee phone numbers to include home, work, pager, fax and mobile; security clearance information; ethnicity and race; disability code; and foreign language capability. Position authorization and control information; position data and performance elements; personnel data and projected suspense information for personnel actions; pay, benefits, and entitlements data. Historical information on employees, including job experience, education, training, and training transaction data; performance plans, interim appraisals, final appraisals,
Resumes, applicant record, Standard Form (SF) 181, Ethnicity and Race Identification, SF 256, “Self-Identification of Disability,” SF 144, “Statement of Prior Federal Service”; OF 306, “Declaration for Federal Employment”; DD 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty”; SF 813, “Verification of a Military Retiree's Service In Non Wartime Campaigns or Expeditions”; SF 15, “Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference”; SF 52, “Request for Personnel Action”; SF 50, “Notification of Personnel Action”; SF 61, “Appointment Affidavit”; DD X739, “Civilian Employee's Military Reserve, Guard, or Retiree Data”; DD 2888, “DoD Critical Acquisition Position Service Agreement”; DD 2889, “DoD Critical Acquisition Position Service Agreement Key Leadership Position (KLP)”; DD 2365, “DoD Expeditionary Civilian Agreement: Emergency-Essential Positions and Non-Combat Essential Positions”; DD 3031, “Department of Defense Senior Executive Service Probation Period”; SF 2809, “Employees' Health Benefits Election”; SF 2817, “Federal Employees' Retirement System Election”; SF 75, “Request for Preliminary Employment Data”; employee or supervisor generated training requests; human resources generated records; employee generated data recorded as self-certified; and other employee or supervisor generated records. Data is also received from various interfaces with systems including, the Joint Personnel Adjudication System; Fourth Estate Manpower Tracking System; Defense Civilian Payroll System; the Air Force Manpower Programming and Execution System; NAF Payroll; Thrift Savings Plan hardship; Interactive Voice Recognition System; USA Staffing; and employee completed training data provided by respective Component agencies.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. To the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the purpose of providing Equal Employment Opportunity group statistics in accordance with 29 CFR part 1614.601, EEO Group Statistics.
b. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for the purpose of addressing civilian pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.
c. To educational institutions and commercial training providers for the purpose of selecting and registering applicants approved by a DoD component to attend a specified program, and, when applicable, to provide for payment.
d. To contractors responsible for performing or working on contracts for the DoD when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this System of Records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure that apply to DoD officers and employees.
e. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.
f. To any component of the Department of Justice, for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
g. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
h. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
i. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
j. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the System of Records; (2) the DoD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
k. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines that information from this System of Records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
Electronic storage media.
Records are retrieved by name, DoD ID, or SSN.
DCHRMS records are retained for 25 years after an individual separates from the government and then the records are purged; Corporate Management Information System records are cutoff and destroyed when no longer needed for business use.
Records are accessed and or maintained in areas accessible only to authorized personnel who are properly screened, cleared, and trained. Common Access Cards (CACs) are employed to ensure access is limited to authorized
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, Office of Freedom of Information, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. Signed written requests should contain name and number of this System of Records Notice along with the individuals' full name, date of birth, SSN, and or DoD ID, and dates of employment (or approximate), and last employing agency. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
The DoD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents, and for appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 310, or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 06E22, Arlington, VA 22350-6000. Signed written requests should contain individual's full name, date of birth, SSN, and or DoD ID, last employing agency, and dates of employment (or approximate). In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
None.
November 15, 2010, 75 FR 69642.
Office of the Assistant to the Secretary Defense for Public Affairs, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 27, 2020.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Angela James, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
The Office of the Secretary of the Navy, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 30, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Department of the Navy Information Management Control Officer, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Rm. 4E563, Washington, DC 20350, Ms. Barbara Figueroa or call 703-614-7885.
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at the Commission's office building, 25 Cosey Road, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628. A business meeting will be held the following month on Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at the Washington Crossing Historic Park Visitor Center, 1112 River Road, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania. The hearing and meeting are open to the public.
The list of projects scheduled for hearing, including project descriptions, and the text of the proposed resolution will be posted on the Commission's website,
Written comments on matters scheduled for hearing on February 12, 2020 will be accepted through 5:00 p.m. on February 17.
The public is advised to check the Commission's website periodically prior to the hearing date, as items scheduled for hearing may be postponed if additional time is needed to complete the Commission's review, and items may be added up to ten days prior to the hearing date. In reviewing docket descriptions, the public is also asked to be aware that the details of projects may change during the Commission's review, which is ongoing.
After all scheduled business has been completed and as time allows, the Business Meeting will be followed by up to one hour of Open Public Comment, an opportunity to address the Commission on any topic concerning management of the basin's water resources outside the context of a duly noticed, on-the-record public hearing.
There will be no opportunity for additional public comment for the record at the March 11 Business Meeting on items for which a hearing was completed on February 12 or a previous date. Commission consideration on March 11 of items for which the public hearing is closed may result in approval of the item (by docket or resolution) as proposed, approval with changes, denial, or deferral. When the Commissioners defer an action, they may announce an additional period for written comment on the item, with or without an additional hearing date, or they may take additional time to consider the input they have already
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the methodology proposed to be used in the 2020 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report is available for review and comment.
Comments on the assessment methodology or recommendations for the consideration of data sets should be submitted in writing before 5:00 p.m. EST on March 6, 2020.
Comments will be accepted
Mr. John Yagecic, Manager, Water Quality Assessment,
The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is an interstate and federal compact agency that was created in 1961 by concurrent legislation of the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Government for purpose of jointly managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.
DRBC currently is compiling data for the
The proposed assessment methodology to be used in the 2020 Assessment is available for review at the following URL:
Office of Undersecretary, President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the February 14, 2020, meeting of the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (PBA) and provides information to members of the public about the meeting. Notice of the meeting is required by § 10(a)2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend.
The PBA meeting will be held on February 14, 2020, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. E.D.T. at the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Barnard Auditorium, Washington, DC 20202.
Sedika Franklin, Designated Federal Official, U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202; telephone: (202) 453-5630, or email
The PBA shall advise the President, through the Initiative, on all matters pertaining to strengthening the educational capacity of HBCUs, in particular, in the following areas: (i) Improving the identity, visibility, and distinctive capabilities and overall competitiveness of HBCUs; (ii) engaging the philanthropic, business, government, military, homeland-security, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding new HBCU programs and initiatives; (iii) improving the ability of HBCUs to remain fiscally secure institutions that can assist the nation in reaching its goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020; (iv) elevating the public awareness of HBCUs; and (v) encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs.
Members of the public who wish to listen to the meeting via telephone may dial (202) 991-0393, 894863025#.
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting in person must submit an RSVP by email to the
All oral comments made will become part of the official record of the PBA. Similarly, written materials distributed during oral presentations will become part of the official record of the meeting.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Executive Order 13779, continued by Executive Order 13889.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On December 27, 2019, we published in the
The correction is applicable January 28, 2020.
Njeri Clark, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 260-14, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 453-6224. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
On December 27, 2019, we published in the
In FR Doc. 2019-27984, in the
(a) On page 71395, in the middle column, under
(b) On page 71395, in the middle column, under
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Education (ED), Federal Student Aid (FSA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 30, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.031L. This notice relates to the approved
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Pearson Owens, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 250-12, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7997. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to address supporting instruction in personal financial literacy, knowledge of markets and economics, knowledge of higher education financing and repayment (
Projects designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice). These projects must address the following priority area: Increasing access to STEM coursework, including computer science, and hands-on learning opportunities, such as through expanded course offerings, dual-enrollment, high-quality online coursework, or other innovative delivery mechanisms.
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information. In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
A cooperative arrangement is an arrangement to carry out allowable grant activities between an institution eligible to receive a grant under this part and another eligible or ineligible IHE, under which the resources of the cooperating institutions are combined and shared to better achieve the purposes of this part and avoid costly duplication of effort.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1. a.
This program is authorized by title III, part A, of the HEA. At the time of submission of their applications, applicants must certify their total undergraduate headcount enrollment and that 10 percent of the IHE's enrollment is Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander. An assurance form, which is included in the application materials for this competition, must be signed by an official for the applicant and submitted.
To qualify as an eligible institution under the AANAPISI Program, an institution must—
(i) Be accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered;
(ii) Be legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior or community college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree; and
(iii) Be designated as an “eligible institution,” as defined in 34 CFR 600.2, by demonstrating that it: (1) Has an enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 607.3; and (2) has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student as described in 34 CFR 607.4.
b.
A grantee under the HSI Program, which is authorized under title V of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A program. The title III, part A programs are: The Strengthening Institutions Program; the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program; the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Program; the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program; and the Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions Program. Furthermore, a current HSI Program grantee may not give up its HSI Program grant in order to be eligible to receive a grant under the AANAPISI Program or any title III, part A program as described in 34 CFR 607.2(g)(1).
An eligible HSI that is not a current grantee under the HSI Program may apply for a FY 2020 grant under all title III, part A programs for which it is eligible, as well as receive consideration for a grant under the HSI Program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant as described in 34 CFR 607.2(g)(1).
An eligible IHE that submits applications for an Individual Development Grant and a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant in this competition may be awarded both in the same fiscal year. However, we will not award a second Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant to an otherwise eligible IHE for an award year for which the IHE already has a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant award under the AANAPISI Program. A grantee with an Individual Development Grant or a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant may be a subgrantee in one or more Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants. The lead institution in a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant must be an eligible institution. Partners or subgrantees are not required to be eligible institutions.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• 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 cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract and the bibliography. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
1.
(a)
(1) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project. (10 points)
(2) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals. (5 points)
(3) 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. (5 points)
(b)
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (10 points)
(2) 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. (5 points)
(3) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (10 points)
(c)
(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. (3 points)
(2) In addition, the Secretary considers:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (3 points)
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (4 points)
(d)
(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. (3 points)
(2) In addition, the Secretary considers:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator. (4 points)
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (3 points)
(e)
(1) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project. (3 points)
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (2 points)
(f)
(1) 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. (5 points)
(2) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (5 points)
(3) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (5 points)
(g)
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (10 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. (5 points)
2.
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
A panel of two non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria. 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 and from the competitive preference priority addressed by the applicant.
In tie-breaking situations for development grants, under 34 CFR 607.23(b), we award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has an endowment fund of which the current market value, per FTE enrolled student, is less than the average current market value of the endowment funds, per FTE enrolled student, at comparable type institutions that offer similar instruction. We award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has expenditures for library materials per FTE enrolled student that are less than the average expenditure for library materials per FTE enrolled student at similar type institutions. We also add one additional point to an application from an IHE that proposes to carry out one or more of the following activities:
(1) Faculty development.
(2) Funds and administrative management.
(3) Development and improvement of academic programs.
(4) Acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening management and academic programs.
(5) Joint use of facilities.
(6) Student services.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, we use 2018-2019 data.
If a tie remains after applying the tie-breaker mechanism above, priority will be given to applicants that have the lowest endowment values per FTE enrolled student.
3.
4.
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.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(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
5.
(a) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year AANAPISIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same AANAPISI.
(b) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year AANAPISIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same AANAPISI.
(c) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year AANAPISIs who graduate within six years of enrollment.
(d) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, 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).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, First Floor Conference Room, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22203 (Ballston Metro Stop).
Christopher Lawrence, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Electricity, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-5260 or Email:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Hampshire Power Corporation's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 11, 2020.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on January 14, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC (Medallion or Petitioner) filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking approval of the open season procedures, transportation services agreement
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 27, 2020, staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a technical workshop on the relational database being built in accordance with Order No. 860 (MBR Database).
This workshop provides a forum for dialogue between Commission staff and interested parties to discuss development and implementation of the MBR Database, including the data dictionary, XML, XSD, submission process, and test environment. Staff welcomes suggestions for discussion topics prior to the workshop. Individuals may suggest agenda topics for consideration by emailing
Due to the nature of the discussion, those interested in participating are encouraged to attend in person. All interested persons (whether attending in person or via webcast) are asked to register at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the technical workshop, please contact Ryan Stertz at (202) 502-6473, or send an email to
As previously noticed on July 30 and October 16, 2019, and supplemented herein, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
With this Supplemental Notice of Intent (Notice) we
This Notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project, including newly affected landowners. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a newly affected landowner receiving this Notice, a Delta LNG representative may have already contacted you or may contact you soon about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if the easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with applicable law.
The FERC is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the environmental review of the Project. As mentioned above, the Commission's staff is preparing an EIS that discusses the environmental impacts of the Project. The EIS will be used to inform the Commission as it determines whether to approve the Project.
This Notice announces the opening of an additional scoping period the Commission will use to gather input from landowners potentially affected by the Project. Comments may be submitted in writing as described in the public participation section of this Notice. Please note that comments on this Notice should be filed with the Commission by February 20, 2020. If you sent comments on this Project prior to the opening of this additional comment period, you do not need to refile your comments. We have received your comments and will use the information in the preparation of the EIS.
Information in this Notice was prepared to notify previously and newly affected landowners of the Project modifications, inform them about the Commission's environmental review process, and instruct them on how to submit comments.
To help potentially affected landowners better understand the Commission and its environmental review process, the “For Citizens” section of the FERC website (
The Project would involve the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana and the approximately 285-mile-long Delta Express Pipeline located within 14 parishes in Louisiana. Domestically sourced natural gas would be transported by the Delta Express Pipeline to the Delta LNG terminal, which would produce, store, and deliver up to 24 million tons per annum of LNG to LNG carriers for export overseas.
Delta LNG previously proposed to construct two parallel 42-inch-diameter pipelines within a single right-of-way and four natural gas-fired compressor stations. Delta LNG no longer proposes to construct the Monterey Compressor Station at milepost (MP) 70.3 in Concordia Parish; the Fordoche Compressor Station at MP 137.9 in Pointe Coupee Parish; or the Belle Rose Compressor Station at MP 200.8 in Assumption Parish.
No modifications of the terminal are proposed. Delta LNG has reduced the facilities associated with the Delta Express Pipeline and now proposes to construct:
• A single 48-inch-diameter pipeline along the previously proposed route; and
• two natural gas-fired compressor stations.
The two compressor stations would consist of the previously planned Alto Compressor Station at MP 0.0 in Richland Parish and the newly proposed Melville Compressor Station at MP 131.2 in Pointe Coupee Parish.
A map depicting the location of the newly proposed Melville Compressor Station is included in appendix 1.
Delta LNG is not proposing any modifications to the planned route of the Delta Express Pipeline.
The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files, which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (PF19-4-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 2.
The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• socioeconomics;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
Commission staff will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, Commission staff have initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the Commission receives an application. As part of the pre-filing review, Commission staff have contacted federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The draft EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this Notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
Commission staff have already identified several issues that deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Delta LNG. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:
• Impacts on wetlands including coastal marsh and forested wetlands;
• cumulative impacts on air quality, noise, wetlands, socioeconomics, and other resources associated with construction and operation of the planned Delta LNG export terminal and the nearby Plaquemines LNG export terminal and other large projects at various stages of planning and construction in the region;
• LNG terminal site alternatives;
• Delta Express Pipeline route alternatives;
• Environmental Justice impacts; and
• alternative construction methods and workspace configurations that would avoid or reduce impacts.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned Project.
A
Once Delta LNG files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
Public sessions or site visits, if any are planned, will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on January 10, 2020, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, TX 77056, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's rules and regulations to replace four existing compressor units at its Lilly Compressor Station, located in Cambria County, Pennsylvania (Lilly Compressor Units Replacement Project). Specifically, Texas Eastern is requesting authorization to replace a total of four existing compressor units with a total certificated horsepower (hp) of 34,800 hp with two new 18,100 hp natural gas-fired units totaling 36,200 hp and related auxiliary facilities, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Texas Eastern also states that they will install software controls on the two new units, limiting the total horsepower at the compressor station to 34,800 hp in order to maintain the current designed horsepower and delivery capacity at the Lilly Compressor Station.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or call (713) 627-4102, fax (713) 627-5947, or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 3 copies of filings made with the Commission and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act section 3 or section 7 proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Sooner Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 10, 2020.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Hamilton Projects Acquiror, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 10, 2020.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on January 21, 2020, pursuant to sections 206, 306 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e and 825h and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2019), Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, Industrial Energy Consumers of America and LS Power Midcontinent, LLC (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO or Respondent) requesting that the Commission direct MISO to revise the cost allocation methodology for Baseline Reliability Projects, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainant certifies that copies of the Complaint were served on the contacts for MISO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e) (1) (v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Wick Meter and Regulator (Wick M&R) Station Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) in Tyler County, West Virginia. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP20-10-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Rover proposes to construct, own, and operate a new meter station on Rover's Sherwood Lateral in Tyler County, West Virginia (“Wick M&R Station Project,” or “Project”). The Project consists of an ultrasonic meter skid and other ancillary facilities, including piping and valves, electronic flow measurement devices, flow conditioners, instrumentation, telemetry, gas analysis devices, gas quality monitoring devices, flow control valves, condensate storage tank, and other related equipment, as necessary. The proposed Project will would be located on along Rover's existing Sherwood Lateral Pipeline in Tyler County, West Virginia.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Rover has recently executed an Interconnect and Operating Agreement with Eureka Midstream, LLC (Eureka) for the installation of the Wick M&R Station Project, to allow for the delivery of natural gas supplies from gathering facilities under development by Eureka, for transportation on the Rover pipeline system.
Approximately 2.1 acres of land would be used to construct the station, of which 0.9 acre would be fenced and maintained for operation of the station and tap along the existing Sherwood Lateral Pipeline.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own property within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment period, a
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
January 30, 2020, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
* Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's website at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Bulb Energy Incorporated's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 11, 2020.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on January 8, 2020, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (WBI
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lori Myerchin, Director, Regulatory Affairs and Transportation Services, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, by telephone at (701) 530-1563, or by email to
WBI Energy filed an application for authorization to abandon by sale, to Scout Energy Group II, LP, its remaining gathering facilities, which includes approximately 400 miles of natural gas gathering pipeline and appurtenant facilities, and related land rights associated with WBI Energy's existing gathering operations in the Baker Field, located in Fallon County, Montana and Bowman County, North Dakota. Following the proposed abandonment WBI Energy will no longer provide any gathering services.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Bulb US LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 11, 2020.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (EPA ICR Number 1687.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0314), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2020. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 27, 2020.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0335, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed either online at
In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2446.03 and OMB Control No. 2070-0185, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2020.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0456 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Todd Coleman, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-1208; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
TPCs are responsible for the certification of regulated composite wood products at the mill level through the oversight of panel producers, routine quarterly testing of composite wood products, and physical inspections of the panel production facilities. Through the Agency's CDX, TPCs are responsible for reporting information including various notifications and annual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 770.7(c). TPCs are also responsible for notifying the Agency of any approval of a no-added formaldehyde limited exemption or an ultra-low emitting formaldehyde exemption of reduced testing approval which they issue to the mills they certify after submitting the required information to the Agency.
Panel producers are responsible for communicating routine testing documentation to their respective TPC pursuant to their responsibilities under 40 CFR 770.20 and 40 CFR 770.40. Panel producers are also responsible for providing certain records to downstream entities and purchasers of regulated composite wood products as well as the Agency, upon request.
Importers, fabricators, distributors, and retailers are responsible for maintaining records pursuant to 40 CFR 770.30 and 40 CFR 770.40(d).
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an overall decrease of 1,396,732 hours in the total estimated combined respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to adjustments in EPA's estimates of the burden, reflecting activities that only had one-time burdens associated with the initial implementation of the rule, and revisions to the estimated number of respondents based on the actual number of participants in the TSCA Title VI program. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Procedures for Requesting a Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2559.03 and OMB Control No. 2070-0202, which represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2020. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0654, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is no change in burden hours, and an increase of $709 in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects the increase in wage rates since the initial ICR. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Chemical-Specific Rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act Section 8(a); Certain Nanoscale Materials” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2517.03 and OMB Control No. 2070-0194, represents the renewal of an
Comments must be received March 30, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0572, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
TSCA section 8(a) authorizes EPA to promulgate rules that require persons who manufacture or process chemical substances and mixtures, or who propose to manufacture or process chemical substances and mixtures, to maintain such records and submit such reports to EPA as may be reasonably required. Information that may be collected under TSCA section 8(a) includes, but is not limited to, chemical names, categories of use, production volume, byproducts of chemical production, existing information on health and environmental effects, exposure information, and disposal information. This information is collected by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and may be used by other EPA offices and/or Federal agencies to ensure knowledge of specific practices that may affect human health and the environment.
Under TSCA section 8(a), EPA is establishing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain chemical substances as nanoscale materials. The rule requires that persons who manufacture or process these nanoscale materials notify EPA of certain information which includes production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available health and safety information. The reporting of these activities will provide EPA with an opportunity to evaluate the information and consider appropriate action under TSCA to reduce any risk to human health or the environment. The information will also inform EPA's assessments of new chemical nanoscale materials submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.
EPA's OPPT, other EPA Offices and/or other Federal agencies will generally be the primary groups for which information will be collected. However, to the extent that reported information is not considered to be confidential business information (CBI), environmental groups, environmental justice advocates, state and local government entities and other members of the public will have access to this information for their own use.
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is decrease of 26,861 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's expectation of decreased submissions. In the previous ICR period, the rule required an initial one-time reporting on current nanomaterials, while the reporting covered in this period only requires the reporting of new nanomaterials. Furthermore, burden estimates assume that the same manufacturers will report each year and, therefore, will have already undertaken rule familiarization in the previous ICR period. Wage rates were also updated to reflect 2018 dollars. This change is an adjustment in estimates.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
10:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 30, 2020.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room located on the Sixth Floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC.
This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (
Open.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session to consider the following matters:
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Disposition of Minutes of a Board of Directors' Meeting Previously Distributed.
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule to Revise Securitization Safe Harbor Rule.
Reports of the Office of Inspector General.
Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Proposed Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-7043.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 required by the 2000 amendment of Section 7A of the Clayton Act.
February 27, 2020.
Nora Whitehead (202-326-3100), Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition, Premerger Notification Office, 400 7th Street SW, Room 5301, Washington, DC 20024.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, Public Law 94-435, 90 Stat. 1390 (“the Act”), requires all persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions, which meet or exceed the jurisdictional thresholds in the Act, to file notification with the Commission and the Assistant Attorney General and to wait a designated period of time before consummating such transactions. Section 7A(a)(2) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product, in accordance with Section 8(a)(5). Note that while the filing fee thresholds are revised annually, the actual filing fees are not similarly indexed and, as a result, have not been adjusted for inflation in over a decade. The new thresholds, which take effect 30 days after publication in the
Any reference to these thresholds and related thresholds and limitation values in the HSR rules (16 CFR parts 801-803) and the Antitrust Improvements Act Notification and Report Form (“the HSR Form”) and its Instructions will also be adjusted, where indicated by the term “(as adjusted)”, as follows:
By direction of the Commission.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by 60 days after date of publication.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
AHRQ requests that OMB reapprove AHRQ's collection of information for the AHRQ Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Health Plan Survey Database: OMB Control number 0935-0165, expiration May 31, 2020 (the CAHPS Health Plan Database). The CAHPS Health Plan Database consists of data from the AHRQ CAHPS Health Plan Survey. Health plans in the U.S. are asked to voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ, through its contractor, Westat. The CAHPS Health Plan Database was developed by AHRQ in 1998 in response to requests from health plans, purchasers, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide comparative data to support public reporting of health plan ratings, health plan accreditation and quality improvement.
This research has the following goals:
(1) To maintain the CAHPS Health Plan Database using data from AHRQ's standardized CAHPS Health Plan Survey to provide results to health care purchasers, consumers, regulators and policy makers across the country.
(2) To offer several products and services, including aggregated results presented through an Online Reporting System, summary chartbooks, custom analyses, and data for research purposes.
(3) To provide data for AHRQ's annual National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report.
(4) To provide state-level data to CMS for public reporting on
Survey data from the CAHPS Health Plan Database is used to produce four types of products: (1) An annual chartbook available to the public on the CAHPS Database website (
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services; quality measurement and development, and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2) and (8).
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
• Health Plan Registration Form—The point-of-contact (POC), often the sponsor from Medicaid agencies and health plans, completes a number of data submission steps and forms, beginning with the completion of the online registration form. The purpose of this form is to collect basic contact information about the organization and initiate the registration process.
• Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the data use agreement, completed by the participating sponsor organization, is to state how data submitted by health plans will be used and provide confidentiality assurances.
• Health Plan Information Form—The purpose of this form, completed by the participating sponsor organization, is to collect background characteristics of the health plan.
• Questionnaire Submission—POCs upload a copy of the questionnaire used to ensure that it meets CAHPS Health Plan Survey standards (the survey instrument must include all core questions, not alter the wording of any core questions, and must not omit any of the survey items related to respondent characteristics that are used for case mix adjustment.)
• Data Files Submission—POCs upload their data file using the Health Plan data file specifications to ensure that users submit standardized and consistent data in the way variables are named, coded, and formatted.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours for the respondents to participate in the database. The burden hours pertain only to the collection of Medicaid data from State Medicaid agencies and individual Medicaid health plans because those are the only entities that submit data through the data submission process (other data are obtained from CMS). The 85 POCs in Exhibit 1 are a combination of an estimated 75 State Medicaid agencies and individual health plans, and 10 vendor organizations.
Each State Medicaid agency, health plan or vendor will register online for submission. The online registration form will require about 5 minutes to complete. Each submitter will also complete a health plan information form about each health plan, such as the name of the plan, the product type (
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to complete one submission process. The cost burden is estimated to be $22,083 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on October 9, 2019 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received two anonymous non-substantive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0822, Exp. 02/29/2020)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This is a revision request for the currently approved National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS, OMB# 0920-0822). In 2010, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System (NISVS) reported that approximately 6.9 million women and 5.6 million men experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner within the last year. The health care costs of IPV exceed $5.8 billion each year, nearly $3.9 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health care services. In order to address this important public health problem, CDC implemented, beginning in 2010, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System that produces national and state level estimates of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), Sexual Violence (SV) and stalking on an annual basis.
This revision request describes the planned testing of a redesign of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) and the approach for collecting NISVS data using multiple data collection modes and sampling strategies. More specifically, this revision request is to; (1) Conduct feasibility testing to assess several alternative design features, including the sample frame (address-based sample [ABS], random digit dial [RDD], web panel), mode of response (telephone, web, paper), and incentive structures that help garner participation and help reduce nonresponse. (2) Conduct experiments that inform the development of a protocol for alternative sampling and weighting methods for multi-modal data collection that will result in the ability to calculate accurate and reliable national and state-level estimates of SV, IPV, and stalking, and (3) Conduct a pilot data collection to ensure that the selected optimal alternative sampling methods and multi-modal data collection approaches for NISVS are ready for full-scale implementation.
These data will be used only to inform future NISVS data collections. Results from the feasibility phase experiments may be prepared for publication, as the findings related to optimal data collection modes, sampling frames, and incentive structures are likely to be useful to other federal agencies currently conducting national data collections. No national prevalence estimates will be generated from the data collected during the NISVS redesign project. The feasibility study involves testing of the CATI, paper, and web versions of the NISVS survey using a variety of sampling frames and single vs. multiple modes, all for the purpose of determining a new design for NISVS, and the pilot test of the new design. Data are analyzed using appropriate statistical software to account for the complexity of the survey design to compute weighted counts, percentages, and confidence intervals using national-level data.
OMB approval is requested for three years. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,189. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Capacity Building Assistance Program: Data Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation. The purpose of this data collection is to evaluate the CDC cooperative agreement program entitled CDC-RFA-PS19-1904: Capacity Building Assistance (CBA) for High Impact HIV Prevention Program Integration.
CDC must receive written comments on or before March 30, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2019-0119 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
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
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Capacity Building Assistance Program: Data Management, Monitoring,
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partners with the national HIV prevention workforce to (1) ensure that persons with HIV (PWH) are aware of their infection and successfully linked to medical care and treatment to achieve viral suppression and (2) expand access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), condoms, and other proven strategies for persons at risk of becoming infected. CDC funds state and local health departments and community-based organizations (CBOs) to optimally plan, integrate, implement, and sustain comprehensive HIV prevention programs and services for people with and at greatest risk of HIV infection, including blacks/African Americans; Hispanics/Latinos; all races/ethnicities of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM); people who inject drugs (PWID); and transgender persons.
Through the CDC cooperative agreement program entitled CDC-RFA-PS19-1904: Capacity Building Assistance (CBA) for High Impact HIV Prevention Program Integration, the CDC Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) funds the CBA Provider Network (CPN) to deliver CBA to CDC-funded health departments and CBOs. CBA provided by the CPN include trainings and technical assistance (TA) that enable the HIV prevention workforce to optimally plan, implement, integrate, and sustain high-impact prevention interventions and strategies to reduce HIV infections and HIV-related morbidity, mortality, and health disparities across the United States and its territories. This information collection evaluates CDC-RFA-PS19-1904. Specifically, the CDC is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to grant a three-year approval to collect data through the use of four web-based instruments that will be administered to recipients of CBA services and their program managers: (1) Learning Group Registration; (2) Post-Training Evaluation (PTE); (3) Post-Technical Assistance Evaluation (PTAE); and (4) Training and Technical Assistance Follow-up Survey (TTAFS).
CBA training participants will complete the Learning Group Registration Form as part of the process for enrolling in a CBA training. The Learning Group Registration Form collects demographic information about training participants including: (1) Business contact information (
Similar to the PTE, the PTAE consists of questions designed to elicit information from TA participants about their satisfaction with aspects of TA such as the relevance of the materials provided or created, responsiveness of the TA provider, TA participants' changes in knowledge or skills as a result of the TA, and barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions/public health strategies. The TTAFS collects organizational-level data every 6 months from the program managers within CDC-funded programs. Program managers provide information about the implementation status of the intervention/public health strategy for which their staff received training and/or TA. Program managers are also asked to describe how their organization applied the training and TA (
The Learning Group Registration Form, PTE, and PTAE will be administered to CDC-funded program staff who participate in a training or TA event offered by a CBA provider funded under PS19-1904. The TTAFS will be administered to the program managers of state and local health department staff and CBO staff who participate in a CBA training or TA event. Respondents will provide information electronically through an online survey. The option to complete surveys via a telephone interview will be offered to respondents who do not complete the online survey within seven days.
The number of respondents is calculated based on an average of the number of health professionals, including doctors, nurses, health educators, and disease intervention specialists, trained by CBA providers during the years 2016-2018. We estimate 3,800 health professionals will provide one response for the Learning Group Registration; 3,800 health professionals will provide a response for the PTE for each training episode; 3,650 health professionals will provide a response for the PTAE for each TA episode; and 189 program managers will provide two responses to the TTAFS in the web-based or telephone survey per year. The total annualized burden is 1,671 hours. There are no other costs to respondents other than their time.
The information collected will allow CDC to:
(1) Identify and respond to public health program performance issues identified through feedback from health departments and CBOs;
(2) Identify and respond to new HIV prevention training and TA needs of health departments and CBOs;
(3) Provide a timely and accurate response to federal, state, and local agencies and other stakeholders seeking information about the types and quality of CBA services delivered. No other federal agency collects this type of national HIV prevention capacity building data.
CDC is requesting approval for an estimated 1,671 burden hours annually. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). NHAMCS collects facility and visit information on ambulatory care services utilization in non-Federal, short stay hospitals in the United States.
CDC must receive written comments on or before March 30, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2020-0004 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
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
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0278, Exp. 06/30/2021)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “utilization of health care” in the United States. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) has been conducted annually since 1992. NCHS is seeking OMB approval to extend this survey for an additional three years.
The target universe of the NHAMCS is in-person visits made to emergency departments (EDs) of non-Federal, short-stay hospitals (hospitals with an average length of stay of less than 30 days) that have at least 6 beds for inpatient use, and with a specialty of general (medical or surgical) or children's general.
NHAMCS was initiated to complement the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS, OMB No. 0920-0234, Exp. Date 05/31/2022), which provides similar data concerning patient visits to physicians' offices. NAMCS and NHAMCS are the principal sources of data on ambulatory care provided in the United States. NHAMCS provides a range of baseline data on the characteristics of the users and providers of hospital ambulatory medical care. Data collected include patients' demographic characteristics, reason(s) for visit, providers' diagnoses, diagnostic services, medications, and disposition. These data, together with trend data, may be used to monitor the effects of change in the health care system, for the planning of health services, improving medical education, determining health care work force needs, and assessing the health status of the population.
Starting 2018, NHAMCS was modified to assess only hospital emergency departments. The survey components that assessed hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery locations were discontinued. No substantive changes or supplements are expected for the survey for the three years being requested.
Users of NHAMCS data include, but are not limited to, congressional offices, Federal agencies, state and local governments, schools of public health, colleges and universities, private industry, nonprofit foundations, professional associations, clinicians, researchers, administrators, and health planners. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,124.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled, “CDC Ideation Catalyst (I-Catalyst) Program and Customer Engagement Information Collection” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on October 25, 2019 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
CDC Ideation Catalyst (I-Catalyst) Program and Customer Engagement Information Collection (OMB Control No. 0920-1158, Exp. 1/31/2020)—Revision—Office of Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI), located within CDC's Office of Science (OS), fosters innovative science and promotes the testing and implementation of innovative ideas that improve CDC's ability to have public health impact. To arm CDC staff with an expanded skill-set and tools to evaluate and translate their insights and ideas into solutions, CDC developed an experiential innovation curriculum and consultation service called Ideation Catalyst (I-Catalyst). The program was created with the belief that innovation should be customer-driven, based on user research, and enhanced by the engagement of people at all levels of an organization. CDC also obtained OMB approval for a generic clearance to support the collection of information from stakeholders and customers, utilizing I-Catalyst program principles and methodology (CDC I-Catalyst Program, OMB No. 0920-1158, exp. date 1/31/2020).
The goal of the I-Catalyst program and service is to help CDC explore, develop, and test new approaches to solving public health problems through a discovery, ideation, and prototyping process. I-Catalyst offers a process for defining problems and engaging stakeholders that improves the quality, efficiency, and performance of innovative solutions. Through the I-Catalyst process, teams of CDC program representatives, in consultation with OTI, work with stakeholders to define and articulate a problem and to identify potentially effective solutions. Participating teams go through a hypothesis-testing, scientific method of discovery to gather important insights and identify technical or contextual issues associated with defining a problem or implementing a solution. Teams are forced “out of the classroom” to conduct interviews, study customer/stakeholder needs, collect feedback, and find partnership opportunities. Only conversations with potential customers/stakeholders can provide the facts from which hypotheses are proven or disproven about whether a solution (
CDC estimates that an average of 10-20 project teams will participate in the I-Catalyst process per year. On average, each team will collect information from approximately 25 customers/stakeholders (a total of 500 respondents per year). Information will be collected primarily through on-site, unstructured interviews with individuals who represent the customers or stakeholders CDC teams are attempting to serve or benefit. CDC may also collect
CDC expects that teams participating in the I-Catalyst process and OTI consultations will be empowered to implement innovative strategies and solutions that create value for their stakeholders. The ultimate goal is to provide CDC staff with real-world, hands-on training and the skills needed to create value-based solutions that benefit society and broaden the agency's impact.
In this Revision request, CDC seeks approval for minor changes to the I-Catalyst generic clearance. (1) The total number of respondents and burden hours will decrease based on participation in the I-Catalyst process during the period 2017-2019. Project-specific estimates will be included with each submission under the I-Catalyst generic clearance. (2) CDC/ATSDR programs may request OTI approval to use the I-Catalyst generic if (a) program representatives completed relevant OTI training in 2017-2019, (b) program representatives participate in relevant OTI training or mentored technical assistance in 2020-2022, or (c) OTI determines that project goals and methodology are consistent with the I-Catalyst process. These changes will allow OTI to make the OMB approval process easier for a broader pool of qualified customer discovery projects. (3) The title of the clearance is being updated to reflect its use by additional CDC/ATSDR project teams approved by OTI.
The I-Catalyst clearance will continue to be used for information collections necessary to explore the needs and preferences of specific stakeholder groups, and to improve the impact of CDC products, programs, and technologies. All projects submitted to OMB for approval under the I-Catalyst generic clearance will be consistent with CDC/OTI goals for promoting scientific innovation and customer engagement in public health.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 250.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by February 27, 2020.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
1. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
2. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by March 30, 2020.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by March 30, 2020.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 30, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion's (OPDP) mission is to protect the public health by helping to ensure that prescription drug promotional material is truthful, balanced, and accurately communicated, so that patients and healthcare providers can make informed decisions about treatment options. OPDP's research program provides scientific evidence to help ensure that our policies related to prescription drug promotion will have the greatest benefit to public health. Toward that end, we have consistently conducted research to evaluate the aspects of prescription drug promotion that are most central to our mission, focusing in particular on three main topic areas: Advertising features, including content and format; target populations; and research quality. Through the evaluation of advertising features we assess how elements such as graphics, format, and disease and product characteristics impact the communication and understanding of prescription drug risks and benefits; focusing on target populations allows us to evaluate how understanding of prescription drug risks and benefits may vary as a function of audience; and our focus on research quality aims at maximizing the quality of research data through analytical methodology development and investigation of sampling and response issues. This study will inform the first topic area.
Because we recognize the strength of data and the confidence in the robust nature of the findings is improved through the results of multiple converging studies, we continue to develop evidence to inform our thinking. We evaluate the results from our studies within the broader context of research and findings from other sources, and this larger body of knowledge collectively informs our policies as well as our research program. Our research is documented on our homepage, which can be found at:
Advertisers have used celebrity endorsers for years, and DTC pharmaceutical promotion is no different. As researchers studied the influence of celebrity endorsers, they theorized that a correspondence bias occurs in which people believe that the endorser truly believes what they are saying. LaTour and Smith (Ref. 1) examined whether a pharmacist, physician, celebrity, or consumer would be most persuasive in advertisements for four different types of OTC products. They found that physicians and pharmacists were the most likely to lead to purchase intentions, followed by consumers, and lastly, by celebrities. There were no differences among types of OTC product.
Bhutada and Rollins (Ref. 2) recently completed a study examining the role of endorser type (
We propose to extend previous research by examining four types of endorsers in two separate studies (celebrity, physician, patient, influencer
To complete this research, we propose the following concurrent studies.
Study A will manipulate endorser type (three levels: Celebrity, physician, patient) and payment disclosure (two levels: Present, absent) within a print DTC ad for a fictitious acne product. For this study, we will recruit 654 general population individuals (249 pretest; 405 main study) from a national nonprobability internet panel called Dynata, formerly ResearchNow. All participants must report familiarity with the celebrity to be included in our study. The celebrity will be one who has publicly spoken out about acne. We are not divulging the identity of the celebrity in this public forum to maintain the integrity of our research process. Stock photos will be used to depict a physician and a patient in the other experimental conditions. Participants will be randomly assigned to see one of the endorsers and to see the ad either with or without a payment disclosure. The payment disclosure in Study 1 will be determined in cognitive testing, but will be similar to: “[Endorser] has been paid to appear in this ad for Drug X.”
In Study B we will also manipulate endorser type, examining a patient and an internet influencer, one who provides online content to a number of followers. We will also manipulate the explicitness of the payment disclosure in addition to its presence, resulting in a two (endorser: Influencer, patient) by three (payment disclosure: Present-direct, present-indirect, absent) between-subjects design. The disclosure will be direct (
For Study B, we will recruit 698 (266 pretest; 432 main study) followers of an internet influencer who maintains an Instagram page with more than 500,000 followers and has posted about endometriosis. As in the first study, we are not revealing the influencer's identity to maintain the integrity of the study.
In both studies, we are interested in the role of endorsement and payment status on participants' recall, benefit and risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Participants will view one promotional piece and answer questions via the internet. The study is expected to take less than 20 minutes to complete. Dependent variables will include attention to disclosure statement and risk/benefit information; retention of risk/benefit information; recognition of piece as promotion and endorser as paid; perceived benefits and risks, attitudes toward the product, endorser, and ad; and behavioral intentions such as asking a doctor about the drug.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The following references are on display with the Dockets Management Staff (see
1. LaTour, C. and M. Smith, (1986). “A Study of Expert Endorsement of OTC Pharmaceutical Products.”
2. Bhutada, N.S. and B.L. Rollins (2015). “Disease-Specific Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals: An Examination of Endorser Type and Gender Effects on Consumers' Attitudes and Behaviors.”
3. Boerman, S.C., L.M. Willemsen, and E.P. Van Der Aa (2017). “This post is sponsored' Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure on Persuasion Knowledge and Electronic Word of Mouth in the Context of Facebook.”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for Multiple Patient Use—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” FDA has developed this draft guidance document to assist in the preparation of premarket notification submissions (510(k)) for arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use. This draft guidance outlines the device design considerations, risk mitigation strategies, and testing recommendations for arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use. This draft guidance document also clarifies the terminology used to describe arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 30, 2020 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Cal Rabang, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4633, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6412.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for Multiple Patient Use—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” FDA has developed this draft guidance document to assist in the preparation of premarket notification submissions (510(k)) for arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use. These devices are designed to deliver irrigation fluid to the surgical site, such as knee, shoulder, hip, elbow, ankle, and wrist joint cavities, during arthroscopic procedures. In arthroscopic procedures, clinicians often use a single source of irrigation fluid for multiple patients without replacing the source of irrigation fluid or replacing/reprocessing the irrigation tubing system between patients. This practice may increase the risk of cross-contamination between patients and subsequent iatrogenic infection because the irrigation system can become contaminated with patient fluids that travel back through the irrigation tubing (“backflow”). FDA has received reports of backflow of patient fluids, which raises the question of potential for disease transmission when using irrigation and tubing systems in such a manner on multiple patients.
When finalized, this guidance is intended to provide recommendations for information to include in premarket notifications (510(k)s) for arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use. This guidance will outline device design considerations, risk mitigation strategies, and testing recommendations for these devices, and will also clarify the terminology used to describe arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for Multiple Patient Use—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following FDA
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, February 26, 2020, 11:00 a.m. to February 26, 2020, 05:30 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting end time. The meeting will be now held on February 26, 2020 from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, Room 7W032, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before April 27, 2020.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2004, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before April 27, 2020.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2005, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2020.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
The salary used to calculate the Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government has been updated to reflect the 2020 Salary Table.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension with changes to a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning application for the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System program. This program allows communities to become eligible for discounts on the cost of flood insurance when the communities undertake activities to mitigate anticipated damage due to flooding. The application materials verify and document the community mitigation activities performed and provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the information necessary to determine what flood insurance premium discounts are appropriate for participating communities.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 30, 2020.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Bill Lesser, Program Specialist, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, (202) 646-2807. You may contact the Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
The National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, section 541) requires that a community rating system be established. This ratings system is a voluntary program for communities and it would provide a method by which flood mitigation activities engaged in by these communities could be measured. The effect of this mitigation activity would reduce the exposure of the communities to damage resulting from flooding and in turn reduce the losses incurred as a result of this flooding. To encourage participation, discounts on flood insurance are offered within communities that successfully complete qualified mitigation actions, and the community ratings system provides the ability to measure these actions and to recertify the communities in successive years.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Partnership and Engagement (OPE).
Notice of open teleconference federal advisory committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (“HSAC” or “Council”) will meet via teleconference on Monday, February 24, 2020 to announce new taskings, appoint new members, and review, deliberate, and vote on the final draft reports of the Emerging Technology Subcommittee focused on Unmanned Aircraft Systems and 3D printing. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Council conference call will take place from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EST on Monday, February 24, 2020. Please note that the meeting may end early if the Council has completed its business.
The HSAC meeting will be held via teleconference. Members of the public interested in participating may do so by following the process outlined below (see “Public Participation”). Written comments can be submitted from February 21, 2020 to March 24, 2020. Comments must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2020-0002 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mike Miron at
Notice of this meeting is given under Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), which requires each FACA committee meeting to be open to the public.
The Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, actionable advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The nonpartisan Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, Federal, State, and Local governments, the private sector, and academia.
For information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance, contact Mike Miron at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 27, 2020.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 27, 2020.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
USCIS must review all documents that relate to the alien's exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings, the alien's record of immigration violations, and the alien's criminal record, if applicable. Moreover, if the alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(C)(i) of the Act, evidence must be submitted to demonstrate that the alien has remained outside the United States for a period of at least 10 years since the date of his or her last departure.
In addition to USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Executive Board for Immigration Review (EOIR) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also rely Form I-212 to grant consent to reapply for admission. These agencies use the application in the same manner as USCIS. CBP has developed an electronic filing system, called Electronic Secured Adjudication Forms Environment (e-SAFE), through which Form I-212 can be submitted when filed with CBP.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice; correction of title.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment. This notice replaces the notice HUD published on January 17, 2020 at 85 FR 3070.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The previously approved Information Collection (OMB Control No: 2506-0212) included the
Compared
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of proposed information collection.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and should be
Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-5015 (This is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Rosie Beaman, Assistant Director of Operations, Disaster Recovery and Special Issues Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Rosie Beaman at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The CDBG program is authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. Following major disasters, Congress appropriates supplemental CDBG funds for disaster recovery. According to Section 104(e)(1) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, HUD is responsible for reviewing grantees' compliance with applicable requirements and their continuing capacity to carry out their programs. Grant funds are made available to states and units of general local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas, unless provided otherwise by supplemental appropriations statute, based on their unmet disaster recovery needs.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before February 27, 2020.
•
•
Daniel Marquez, via phone at 760-431-9440, via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Stuart Grange by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the BLM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised and continuing collections of information. This helps to assess the impact of the BLM's information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the BLM's information collection requirements and provides the requested data in the desired format. A
The BLM is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below and is interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The BLM will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
The following information pertains to this request:
•
•
•
•
An agency may not conduct or sponsor—and a person is not required to respond to—a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Beth Poindexter by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
A. The following information collection activities are one-time-only, and pertain to equipment in operation before January 17, 2017:
• Transducers—Test Data Collection and Submission for Existing Makes and Models;
• Flow-Computer Software—Test Data Collection and Submission for Existing Makes and Models;
• Isolating Flow Conditioners—Test Data Collection and Submission for Existing Makes and Models;
• Differential Primary Devices Other than Flange-Tapped Orifice Plates—Test Data Collection and Submission for Existing Makes and Models;
• Linear Measurement Devices—Test Data Collection and Submission for Existing Makes and Models; and
• Accounting Systems—Test Data Collection and Submission for Existing Makes and Models.
B. Spot sampling in accordance with 43 CFR 3175.115(a) and (b) is required at the following frequency:
• Once every 12 months for very-low volume facility management points (FMPs);
• Once every 6 months for low-volume FMPs;
• Once every 3 months for high-volume FMPs;
• Once a month for very-high volume FMPs.
C. The following information collection activities require a response in fewer than 30 days upon receipt of a request from the BLM:
• The operator must submit all gas analysis reports to the BLM within 15 days of the due date for the sample as specified in 43 CFR 3175.115.
• A BLM request for information, either while the BLM is witnessing a gas analysis or conducting a production audit, generally requires a response within 2 weeks. The pertinent regulations are at 43 CFR 3175.102(e)(2), 3175.113(d)(1), 3175.118(c) and (d), 3175.104(a), and 3175.104(b).
• An operator must produce proof of test equipment recertification immediately when a BLM inspector is present to witness the verification of a mechanical record or EGM system under 43 CFR 3175.102(h), or to witness a gas sample being taken under 43 CFR 3175.113(c)(3) or 3175.114(a)(3).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of call for nominations.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is publishing this notice in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. The BLM gives notice that the Secretary of the Interior is establishing the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area (Recreation Area) Advisory Council (Council) and seeking nominations for individuals to be considered as Council members.
A completed nomination form and accompanying nomination/recommendation letters must be received by February 27, 2020.
Send nominations to Christopher Conrad, BLM Price Field Office Manager, 125 South 600 West, Price, Utah 84501, Attention: San Rafael Swell Advisory Council Nominations.
Contact Jonathan Moor, Public Affairs Specialist, Green River District, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078, phone (435) 781-2774, or email:
The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, Section 1223, directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a seven-member citizen-based advisory council that is regulated by FACA (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) and section 309 of the FLPMA. The BLM rules governing advisory committees are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784.
The Council shall advise the Secretary with respect to the preparation and implementation of the management plan for the Recreation Area.
The Council will include seven members to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior as follows:
(1) A representative of the Emery County Commission;
(2) A representative of motorized recreational users;
(3) A representative of non-motorized recreational users;
(4) A representative of grazing allotment permittees within the Recreation Area or wilderness areas designated;
(5) A representative of conservation organizations;
(6) A representative with expertise in the historical uses of the Recreation Area; and
(7) An elected leader of a federally recognized tribe that has significant cultural or historical connections to, and expertise in, the landscape, archeological sites, or cultural sites within the County.
Members will be appointed to the Council to serve three-year staggered terms.
The specific category the nominee would be representing should be identified in the letter of nomination and on the application form.
Members of the Council serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business, Council members engaged in Council business may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Federal Government service.
The Council will meet approximately two to four times annually, and at such other times as designated by the Designated Federal Officer.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jeremy Bluma by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. A
The BLM is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below and is interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) How might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) How might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
Kimberly Hackett at 202-912-7216. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Ms. Hackett.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised and
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to the BLM to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
The following information pertains to this request:
• 4120-6, Cooperative Range Improvement Agreement; and
• 4120-7, Range Improvement Permit.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor—and a person is not required to respond to—a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Subijoy Dutta by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the BLM will provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps to assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
The BLM is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below and is interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this Notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• Documentation of Testing for Approval of a Coriolis Meter;
• Request to Use Alternate Oil Measurement System; and
• Testing of Alternate Oil Measurement System.
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the FBI. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the FBI at the address in this notice by February 27, 2020.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Headquarters, Attn: Supervisory Special Agent Timothy Carpenter, Art Theft Program, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535, telephone (954) 931-3670, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC. The human remains were removed from the northern New Mexico and Arizona border.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the FBI in consultation with the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
In 2008, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from somewhere on the northern New Mexico and Arizona border. The human remains were later transported to Indiana, where they remained part of a private collection of Native American antiquities and cultural heritage. In April 2014, the human remains were seized by the FBI as part of a criminal investigation. The human remains represent one young adult female, three young-to-middle age adult females, three middle-to-old age adult females, two middle-to-old age adult males, and one individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In May 2017, the FBI consulted with all the Indian Tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the border region of northwest New Mexico and northeast Arizona. At this consultation, the Hopi Tribe of Arizona agreed to accept control of the human remains on behalf of all The Consulted Tribes. The Consulted Tribes concurred.
Oral traditions and archeological site analyses indicate that several populations of Ancestral Puebloan peoples inhabited this region of the New Mexico and Arizona border. Ancestral Puebloan peoples are considered to be the ancestors of contemporary Pueblo peoples, including the Hopi Tribe of Arizona.
Officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American, based on consultation information and non-invasive/non-destructive skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Consulted Tribes.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Consulted Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Consulted Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Headquarters, Attn: Supervisory Special Agent Timothy Carpenter, Art Theft Program, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535, telephone (954) 931-3670, email
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology (UTK) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to UTK. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to UTK at the address in this notice by February 27, 2020.
Dr. Robert Hinde, University of Tennessee, Office of the Provost, 527 Andy Holt Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996-0152, telephone (865) 974-2445, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville, TN. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Morton County, ND; Campbell County, SD; and Lyman County, SD.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by UTK professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
In the summer of 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from 32MO11, the Huff site, in Morton County, ND. The excavation was directed by W. Raymond Wood under a grant from the State Historical Society of North Dakota and the National Park Service (NPS). Post-excavation, Wood transferred the human skeletal remains to the State Historical Society of North Dakota. In October 1960, Wood had Norman Paulson transfer the human skeletal remains to William Bass at the University of Kansas. In 1971, when Bass moved from Kansas to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK), he took at least two skeletal individuals from the Huff site, 32MO11, with him. The individual in Burial 1 is a female, 45 to 50 years old. The individual in Burial 3 is a female, 45 to 50 years old. (A third individual, in Burial 2, was not found at UTK during the 2017-2019 final inventory and documentation search, and it is unclear whether the State Historical Society of North Dakota ever transferred the human remains of that individual). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The Huff site, 32MO11, is considered to be a relatively short-term fortified site occupied during the Terminal Middle Missouri period. Radiocarbon dating, with a 2-sigma probability range, dates the site between A.D. 1431 and 1496 (Johnson 2007:73). The Huff site is located about 19 miles south of the town of Mandan. The Terminal Middle Missouri Period, together with the earlier Extended Middle Missouri Period and the later Heart River phase, are “thought to represent an unbroken Mandan cultural continuum from the historically documented villages in the Heart region back to about AD 1000” (Johnson 2007:109). Today, the Mandan are part of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, known as the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Between 1957 and 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 41 individuals were removed from 39CA4, the Anton Rygh site, in Campbell County, SD, under the direction of Alfred W. Bowers as part of the Missouri River Basin Project. Post-excavation, Bowers transferred these human skeletal remains to the University of Idaho, Moscow. In January 1974, the Chairman of the Sociology/Anthropology Department of the University of Idaho, Moscow, Roderick Sprague, transferred the human skeletal remains to William Bass at UTK. The human skeletal remains belong to nine infants and eight children of indeterminate sex, four adolescents, and 20 adults. Three of the adolescent individuals are of indeterminate sex, and one is probably male. Of the adults, six are probably male, 10 probably female, and four are of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Site 39CA4 is a large, multi-component earth lodge village, part of the Plains Village Tradition. It is a fortified village site covering around 11-12 acres, and at least two occupations are suggested by the archeological evidence. The first occupation dates to the Extended Middle Missouri period (A.D 1000-1500), while the second
In 1956, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from 39CA6, the Bamble site, in Campbell County, SD, by David Baerreis, John Dallman and others from the University of Wisconsin under the Inter-Agency Salvage Program in the Missouri Basin. Post-excavation, these human skeletal remains were presumably transferred to the University of Wisconsin. At an unknown date, likely post 1956 and pre-1990s, the human skeletal remains were transferred from the University of Wisconsin to William Bass at UTK. The individual in Burial 2/1 is an adult male, 40-45 years old; the individual in Burial 2/2 is an adult female, 22-24 years old; the individual in Burial 2/3 is a newborn infant, sex indeterminate; the individual in Burial 2/4 is an adult, probably male, 35+ years old; and the individual in Burial 2/5 is an adult, probably female, 50+ years old. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is an animal bone.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from 39CA6, the Bamble site, in Campbell County, SD. This individual, a child, was not assigned a burial number. A note accompanying the human remains stated “donated by Earl Burns.” At an unknown date, these human remains were transferred to William Bass at UTK. This skeletal individual is a child, 2-4 years old, of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 17 associated funerary objects are seven animal bones, eight ceramic fragments, one antler, and one rock.
Site 39CA6, the Bamble site, is a fortified village dating to the Extended Coalescent period, circa A.D. 1500-1675. Artifacts from previous excavations at the site show a mix of indigenous and European materials, such as glass beads and brass items. Burial practices include primary interments covered with wood, representative of the Akaska Focus. Based on oral tradition, archeological evidence, geographical location, historic accounts, and osteological interpretations, the people of the Extended Coalescent period are believed to be ancestral Arikara. Today, the Arikara are part of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, known as the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from 39LM227, the Stricker Mound site in Lyman County, SD, by Carlyle Smith of the University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History, under a cooperative agreement with the NPS. Presumably, Smith transferred the human remains to the University of Kansas, as William Bass and Richard Jantz studied them there in 1962. In 1971, Bass transferred the human remains to UTK. The first individual is an adult male, 30-35 years old; the second individual is a newborn infant of indeterminate sex; and the third individual is an adult male, 50+ years old. No known individuals were identified. The 53 associated funerary objects are one soil sample, three animal teeth, 36 animal bone fragments, nine lithic flakes, two projectile points, one sandstone tool, and one bivalve.
According to Bass and Jantz (1965:20), the Stricker site, 39LM1, contained a burial mound later designated 39LM227. Archeological evidence places the Stricker site (39LM1) in the Extended Coalescent period (A.D. 1500-1675). Although it is unclear if the burial was contemporaneous with the settlement or a later intrusion, a projectile point found with the first individual does fit within the Extended Coalescent period. Anthropological, archeological and biological evidence support a finding that the people of the Extended Coalescent and the later Post Contact Coalescent periods in this region are ancestral Arikara. Today, the Arikara are part of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, known as the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Based on morphological features, site and burial context, and associated funerary objects, UTK has determined that the human remains in this notice are of Native American ancestry. Additionally, based upon the historical record, anthropological and archeological evidence, site analysis, osteological analysis, and tribal consultation, UTK believes that there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Officials of the University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 52 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 71 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Robert Hinde, University of Tennessee, Office of the Provost, 527 Andy Holt Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996-0152, telephone (865) 974-2445, email
The University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument at the address in this notice by February 27, 2020.
Wayne Challoner, Superintendent, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, P.O. Box 39, Crow Agency, MT 59022, telephone (406) 638-3201, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, Crow Agency, MT. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, Big Horn County, MT.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument.
This notice corrects the cultural affiliation published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
Lastly, officials of the National Park Service have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (e), there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Crow Tribe of Montana.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wayne Challoner, Superintendent, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, P.O. Box 39, Crow Agency, MT 59022, telephone (406) 638-3201, email
The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is responsible for notifying the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation), South Dakota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The State University of New York at Buffalo has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the State University of New York at Buffalo. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the State University of New York at Buffalo at the address in this notice by February 27, 2020.
Douglas J. Perrelli, Ph.D., RPA, University at Buffalo, 380 MFAC, Ellicott Complex, Buffalo, NY 14261, telephone (716) 645-2297, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. The human remains were removed from sites in Jefferson and Onondaga Counties, NY.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the SUNY at Buffalo professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Nation of New York) and the Onondaga Nation.
In 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Bolio site near Watertown, NY. The human remains were recovered during excavation of a gravel pit near the Jefferson County Highway Department building. Incorporation of the human remains into the museum's collection was not documented. The human remains include upper and lower limb fragments, rib and vertebral fragments, and bones from the pelvic region. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Carlos site in Watertown, NY. The human remains were removed during excavations by the archeological field crew at the University at Buffalo, and were subsequently incorporated into the museum's collection. The human remains include a zygomatic fragment (small bone found on the face) and one upper central incisor from one context, and a small bone fragment found in the topsoil. Museum documents indicate the human remains date to the Late Woodland Period. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown time, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Denman's Island site in Onondaga County, NY. How the museum acquired these human remains is unknown. The human remains include rib fragments, fragments from bones of the feet, and other small bone fragments. Records indicate they came from a Middle-Late Woodland Camp Site. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Durham site near Rutland, NY. The human remains were recovered during a University at Buffalo field school excavation. The human remains include one molar. The molar was removed from a non-burial context. According to records, the site was a Late Woodland Iroquois village. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Ellisburg Town Barn site in Ellisburg, NY. The human remains were recovered by University at Buffalo archeologists in a surface collection during construction of the Ellisburg Town Barn. The human remains include long bone (limb) fragments and a tooth fragment. Some documents indicate the human remains may be dated prior to European contact. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from the Jamesville Lake site in Lafayette Township, NY. No documentation explaining how the University at Buffalo came to acquire these human remains exists. Some of these individuals are represented by nearly complete skeletons, while others are represented by only a small number of bones. This site dates to the late 17th century (according to James Tuck's 1971
In 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Cronk/Morse/Dry Hill site near Watertown, NY. The human remains were recovered during test excavations by the University at Buffalo archeological field crew. The human remains include a worked skull fragment from one context, as well as a partial distal humerus, two long bone shaft fragments, a scapula, rib fragments, and other fragmented bone pieces. Records indicate the site dates from the Late Woodland through Contact Periods. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Potocki site in Ellisburg, NY. The human remains were recovered during excavation led by University at Buffalo archeologist Marian E. White. The human remains include an almost complete skeleton documented as `Burial 1', a number of fragmentary long bone, teeth, rib, and cranial bones labelled as `Burial 2', a human tooth from `Test Area 8, Unit 3' representing Burial 3, and four fragmented human teeth representing Burial 4. Museum documents indicate the site was an Iroquoian Late Woodland Village Site. Two radiocarbon dates (one from charred vegetable fragments the other from charcoal) provided dates of A.D. 1830 and 1475. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In either 1966 or 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Whitford site in Rodman, NY. Museum records indicate that a midden was excavated at this site in 1966, and that University at Buffalo archeologist Marian E. White and a crew of other archeologists partially excavated the site in July and August of 1968. The human remains include one molar tooth crown. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains from these nine sites are determined to be affiliated with the Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Nation of New York) and the Onondaga Nation. Affiliation was determined by comparing precise geographic locations of each site with the `Indian Nation Areas of Interest' map which was prepared by the New York State Historic Preservation Office in consultation with
Officials of the State University of New York at Buffalo have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 21 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Nation of New York) and the Onondaga Nation.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Douglas J. Perrelli, Ph.D., RPA, University at Buffalo, 380 MFAC, Ellicott Complex, Buffalo, NY 14261, telephone 716.645.2297, email
The State University of New York at Buffalo is responsible for notifying the Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Nation of New York) and the Onondaga Nation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Juan National Forest has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the San Juan National Forest. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the San Juan National Forest at the address in this notice by February 27, 2020.
Mark Lambert, Staff Officer, San Juan National Forest, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, CO 81301, telephone (970) 385-1240, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Juan National Forest, Durango, CO. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Falls Creek Rock Shelters (5LP1434), on lands managed by the Forest Service in the Animas Valley, North of Durango, La Plata County, CO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the San Juan National Forest, La Plata County Historical Society, and Fort Lewis College professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana., New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah); and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
In 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Falls Creek Rock Shelters (5LP1434) in La Plata County, CO. The human remains were collected by the National Youth Administration, under the direction of Helen Daniels, at the South Shelter of the Falls Creek Rock Shelters in June 1936. The human remains remained in Daniels' possession until they were donated to the La Plata County Historical Society in 1989. The La Plata County Historical Society completed a NAGPRA inventory in 2018, and identified three individuals from the Falls Creek Rock Shelters. In 2018, physical transfer of the human remains to the San Juan National Forest took place. Individual 1 is an infant of about 2 months of age (range 1-3 months). Individual 2 is an adult (18+ years), sex indeterminate. Individual 3 is an infant aged 5-7 months. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The Falls Creek Rock Shelters have been identified as a Basketmaker II habitation site, with the main occupation occurring between 300 B.C. and A.D. 400, based upon tree-ring dates. The preponderance of evidence derived from the archeological, biological, oral traditions, and
This cultural determination is based upon an extensive review of published and unpublished information, including information provided by Indian Tribes during consultations conducted between 1995 and 2015 and archeological evidence consisting of chronological data, artifacts, and rock art. In addition, recent DNA research, as well as Hopi and Zuni oral traditions, demonstrate an affiliation between Basketmaker II populations and modern Puebloans.
Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Juan National Forest have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Affiliated Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mark Lambert, Staff Officer, San Juan National Forest, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, CO 81301, telephone (970) 385-1240, email
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Juan National Forest, is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Affiliated Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR contact Maria Said, U.S. Public Health Service Epidemiology Branch Chief, Office of Public Health, National Park Service 1849 C Street NW, Room 2543, Mailstop 2560, Washington, DC 20240; or by phone at (202) 513-7151 or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
On December 15, 2016, we published a
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the NPS, (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the NPS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to
This is a request to approve two forms currently in use without a valid OMB control number. The Concession Employee Illness Reporting and Tour Vehicle Passenger Illness Reporting forms have been in use in Yellowstone National Park (YELL) since 2008. We are now requesting approval to use these forms at Yellowstone, Grand Teton (GRTE) and Glacier (GLAC) National Parks because visitors tend to visit these three parks in succession during a single trip.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Lake Meredith National Recreation Area. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lake Meredith National Recreation Area at the address in this notice by February 27, 2020.
Eric Smith, Superintendent, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-0300, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, Fritch, TX. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites in Potter County, TX.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals, number of associated funerary objects, cultural affiliation, and one site number reported in two previously published notices: Notice of Inventory Completion (66 FR
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Lake Meredith National Recreation Area professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; and the Cohuiltecan Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
In 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from State Site 41PT12 in Potter County, TX, during a legally authorized survey of the area then under the management of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Items found elsewhere at the site indicate that these human remains probably were buried during the Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 900-1700).
In 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, 43 individuals were removed from the Footprint site in Potter County, TX, then under the management of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, during a legally authorized excavation by F.E. Green of Texas Tech University. No known individuals were identified. The 928 associated funerary objects are two pots, 70 shell beads, 11 knives or knife fragments, 14 awls, two shell pendants, one pipe, 417 pieces of debitage, three stones, five flakes, seven bones, 155 bone scraps, 54 sherds, 40 pieces of daub, one piece of ochre, one worked shell, 70 charcoal samples, four soil samples, one chopper, one mano fragment, two bifaces, one uniface, five projectile points, one basketry fragment, nine worked bones, two shell gorgets, 13 worked flakes, 35 unworked bones, and one wood sample. The associated funerary objects indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Antelope Creek Focus of the Plains Village-Panhandle Aspect (A.D. 1100-1400).
On March 15, 1965, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, then called Sanford National Recreation Area, came under the joint administration of the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service. Control of the collections recovered prior to that date has been assumed by the National Park Service.
In June 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Blue Creek Site in Potter County, TX, during legally authorized excavations by the Texas Archaeological Society. No known individuals were identified. The 266 associated funerary objects are three flakes, one bone scrap, two mineral specimens, 253 sherds, three pebbles, three projectile points, and one bone artifact. The associated funerary objects indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Plains Village-Panhandle Aspect (A.D. 1100-1400).
Archeological information indicates a continuous occupation of the Texas panhandle area from A.D. 1 through the Plains Village-Panhandle Aspect. Wichita oral tradition links these earlier populations with the Escanxaques, or Iscani people, a constituent band of the present-day Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma. Anthropological literature, archeological data, and tribal oral histories identify these peoples as being predecessors to the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.
Officials of U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 48 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 1,194 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Eric Smith, Superintendent, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-0300, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area is responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; and Cohuiltecan Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Gulf Islands National Seashore. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Gulf Islands National Seashore at the address in this notice by February 27, 2020.
Daniel Brown, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563-5000, (850) 934-2613, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from sites in Santa Rosa County, FL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Gulf Islands National Seashore professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)) and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians was invited to consult but did not participate.
In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Boy Scout Water site in Santa Rosa County, FL during archeological survey. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Between 1973 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the First Gulf Breeze site in Santa Rosa County, FL, during archeological survey and testing. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a vessel fragment.
In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Big Heart West site in Santa Rosa County, FL during archeological survey and testing. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the base of an overturned tree by a park visitor in the Naval Live Oaks area of Gulf Islands National Seashore in Santa Rosa County, FL. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Third Gulf Breeze site in Santa Rosa County, FL, during construction monitoring. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on removal from known Native American sites and osteological analyses.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. The National Park Service intends to convey the associated funerary object to the Tribes pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 102503(g) through (i) and 54 U.S.C. 102504.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary object were removed is the aboriginal land of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary object were removed is the aboriginal land of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary object may be to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Daniel Brown, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563-5000, (850) 934-
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore is responsible for notifying the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) are proposing to renew an information collection. ONRR seeks renewed authority to collect information pertaining to the Federal oil and gas valuation regulations, which include transportation and processing regulatory allowance limits, and the accounting and auditing relief for marginal properties. Also, for certain time periods, there is one form (ONRR-4393 (Request to Exceed Regulatory Allowance Limitation)) associated with this information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email to
Mr. Peter Christnacht, Royalty Valuation, ONRR, telephone at (303) 231-3651, or email to
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We published a
The first comment we received stated:
The second comment we received stated:
The third comment we received stated:
Once again, we are soliciting comments on this proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues mentioned in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1): (1) Is the collection necessary to execute ONRR's proper functions; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden hours accurate; (4) how might ONRR enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information collected; and (5) how might ONRR minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other PII in your comment(s), you should be aware that your entire comment, including PII, may be made available to the public at any time. While you can ask us, in your comment, to withhold your PII from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We also will post this ICR at
The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under various laws, the Secretary's responsibility is to (1) manage mineral resources production from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS; (2) collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due; and (3) distribute the funds collected. We have posted the laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS at
The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. ONRR performs the mineral revenue management functions for the Secretary and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands.
When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share of the value of production from the leased lands. The lessee, or their designee, must report various kinds of information, related to the disposition of the leased minerals, to the lessor. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling such minerals.
You can find the information collections covered in this ICR at title 30 of the
• 1202, subparts C and D, which pertain to Federal oil and gas royalties.
• 1204, subpart C, which pertains to accounting and auditing relief for marginal properties.
• 1206, subparts C and D, which pertain to Federal oil and gas product valuation.
ONRR, acting for the Secretary, uses the information we collect to ensure that lessees accurately value and appropriately pay all royalties based on the oil and gas produced from Federal onshore and offshore leases. ONRR and other Federal government entities, including the Bureau of Land Management and the State governmental entities, use the information for audit purposes and for evaluating the reasonableness of product valuation or allowance claims that lessees submit. Please refer to the
The valuation regulations at 30 CFR part 1206, subparts C and D, mandate that lessees collect and submit information used to value their Federal oil and gas, including (1) transportation and processing allowances and (2) regulatory allowance limit information. Lessees report certain data on the
In 2004, we amended our regulations to comply with section 7 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996. These regulations provide guidance for lessees and designees seeking accounting and auditing relief for qualifying Federal marginal properties. Under the regulations, both ONRR and the State concerned must approve any accounting and auditing relief granted for a marginal property.
We will request OMB approval to continue to collect, from companies, lessees, and designees, information used (1) to value their Federal oil and gas, including transportation and processing allowances, and (2) to request accounting and auditing relief approval for qualifying Federal marginal properties. Not collecting this information will limit the Secretary's ability to discharge fiduciary duties and may also result in the loss of royalty payments. We protect the proprietary information that we receive and do not collect items of a sensitive nature.
ONRR requires that lessees respond to information collections relating to valuing Federal oil and gas, including (a) transportation and processing allowances and (b) the request to exceed regulatory allowance limit information (form ONRR-4393). ONRR also requires that lessees submit the allowance information to obtain benefits for claiming allowances on form ONRR-2014. In addition, ONRR requires lessees to respond to information collections in regard to requesting approval for accounting and auditing relief.
We have not included in our estimates certain requirements that companies perform in the normal course of business and that ONRR considers usual and customary.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part a final initial determination (“FID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Commission also extends the target date for completion of this investigation by five business days to March 20, 2020.
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on September 13, 2018, based on a complaint, as amended, filed by FCA US LLC of Auburn Hills, Michigan (“Complainant”).
On November 8, 2019, the ALJ issued the FID finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the FID finds that Respondents' Roxor vehicle infringes Complainant's asserted trade dress but not its registered trademarks. The FID also finds that the domestic industry requirement is satisfied. The RD recommends that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order barring entry of Respondents' articles that infringe the asserted trade dress and a cease and desist order against Respondents. In addition, the RD recommends that the Commission set a bond during the period of Presidential review at ten percent on unassembled Roxor components or one percent on the finished Roxor vehicle.
The Commission has determined to review the FID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the FID's findings with respect to the validity and infringement of the asserted trade dress, as well as importation findings relating to Complainant's trade dress infringement claim. With respect to Complainant's claim of infringement of its registered trademarks, the Commission has determined to review the FID's findings on infringement and domestic industry. The Commission has further determined not to review the remainder of the FID.
The Commission has also determined to extend the target date by five business days to March 20, 2020.
At this time, the Commission does not request briefing from the parties on the issues under review. The Commission is requesting briefing on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding solely with respect to Complainant's trade dress infringement claim.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background,
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action the Commission's determination.
Written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on February 7, 2020. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on February 14, 2020 and must be limited to issues raised in the initial written submissions. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1132”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico and the countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
January 6, 2020.
Lawrence Jones ((202) 205-3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”) prohibiting the unlicensed importation of platforms that sit on an existing desk or work surface and can be adjusted to different heights that infringe one or more of claims 1-2, 4, and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,113,703 (“the '703 patent”); claims 11, 16, 18, and 22-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9,277,809 (“the '809 patent”); claims 1, 4-5, 11-12, 26, and 33-36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,554,644 (“the '644 patent”); and claims 20-21 and 40-50 of U.S. Patent No. 9,924,793 (“the '793 patent”); and cease and desist orders (“CDO”) against certain respondents that had not participated in the above-captioned investigation. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General
On July 30, 2018, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint and supplements thereto filed on behalf of Varidesk LLC (“Varidesk”) of Coppell, Texas. 83 FR 36621 (July 30, 2018). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain height-adjustable desk platforms and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more claims of the '703, the '809, the '644, and the '793 patents.
The Commission's notice of investigation named thirty-one respondents: (1) Albeit LLC of San Francisco, California (“Albeit”); (2) ATC Supply LLC of Plainfield, Illinois (“ATC Supply”); (3) Shenzhen Atc Network Scienology CO., LTD. of Guangdong, China (“Shenzhen ATC”); (4) Best Choice Products of Ontario, California (“Best Choice”); (5) Huizhou Chang He Home Supplies Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China (“Chang He”); (6) Dakota Trading, Inc. of Emerson, New Jersey (“Dakota”); (7) Designa Inc. of Guangdong, China (“Designa”); (8) Designa Group, Inc. of El Dorado Hills, California (“Designa Group”); (9) Eureka LLC of El Dorado Hills, California (“Eureka”); (10) LaMountain International Group LLC of Elk Grove, California (“LaMountain”); (11) Amazon Import Inc. of El Monte, California (“Amazon Imports”); (12) Hangzhou Grandix Electronics Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China (“Grandix”); (13) Ningbo GYL International Trading Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China (“Ningbo GYL”); (14) Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Co. of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“Knape & Vogt”); (15) JV Products Inc. of Milpitas, California (“JV Products”); (16) Vanson Distributing, Inc. of Milpitas, California (“Vanson Distributing”); (17) Vanson Group, Inc. of Milpitas, California (“Vanson Group”); (18) S.P. Richards Co. DBA Lorell of Smyrna, Georgia (“Lorell”); (19) Nantong Jon Ergonomic Office Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Nanotong Jon”); (20) Jiangsu Omni Industrial Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Jiangsu Omni”); (21) OmniMax USA, LLC of Anna, Texas (“OmniMax USA”); (22) Haining Orizeal Import and Export Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China (“Haining Orizeal”); (23) Qidong Vision Mounts Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Vision Mounts”); (24) Hangzhou KeXiang Keji Youxiangongsi of Hangzhou, China (“Hangzhou KeXiang”); (25) Smugdesk, LLC of La Puente, California (“Smugdesk”); (26) Venditio Group, LLC of Elkton, Florida (“Venditio”); (27) Versa Products Inc. of Los Angeles, California (“Versa”); (28) Victor Technology, LLC of Bolingbrook, Illinois (“Victor”); (29) CKnapp Sales, Inc. DBA Vivo of Goodfield, Illinois (“Vivo”); (30) Wuhu Xingdian Industrial Co., Ltd. of Anhui, China (“Wuhu Xingdian”); and (31) Wuppessen, Inc. of Ontario, California (“Wuppessen”).
During the course of the investigation, Varidesk settled with the following respondents: Venditio, Jiangsu Omni, OmniMax USA, Knape & Vogt, Wuppessen, Victor, Versa, Designa, Designa Group, Eureka, Chang He, Vision Mounts, Vivo, Nanotong Jon, Best Choice, Grandix, Hangzhou KeXiang, Lorell, and Dakota. Order No. 7,
On April 11, 2019, Varidesk moved for summary determination of a violation of section 337 as to the remaining eleven respondents, who were served with a copy of the complaint, but had not filed a response or participated in the investigation. On April 24, 2019, Varidesk filed a supplement to the motion. The remaining respondents (collectively, “the Non-Participating Respondents”) are: (1) Albeit, (2) ATC Supply, (3) Shenzhen ATC, (4) Amazon Imports, (5) Ningbo GYL, (6) JV Products, (7) Vanson Distributing, (8) Vanson Group, (9) Haining Orizeal, (10) Smugdesk, and (11) Wuhu Xingdian. On April 26, 2019, OUII filed a response supporting Varidesk's motion in substantial part.
On September 13, 2019, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 33), and a recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bonding. The ID granted the motion in part. Specifically, the ALJ found,
On October 29, 2019, the Commission determined not to review the ID. 84 FR 59417 (Nov. 4, 2019). The Commission's determination resulted in finding a violation of section 337 as to Albeit, ATC Supply, Shenzhen ATC, Amazon Imports, Ningbo GYL, JV Products, Vanson Distributing, Vanson Group, Smugdesk, and Wuhu Xingdian, but not as to Haining Orizeal.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy in this investigation is: (1) A GEO prohibiting the unlicensed importation of platforms that sit on an existing desk or work surface and can be adjusted to different heights that infringe one or more of claims 1-2, 4, and 10-11 of the '703 patent; claims 11, 16, 18, and 22-26 of the '809 patent; claims 1, 4-5, 11-12, 26, and 33-36 of the '644 patent; and claims 20-21 and 40-50 of the '793 patent; and (2) CDOs prohibiting respondents Albeit, ATC Supply, Amazon Import, JV Products, Vanson Distributing, Vanson Group, and Smugdesk from further importing, selling, and distributing infringing products in the United States. (Chairman Johanson and Commissioner Stayin dissent with respect to the Commission's determination to issue CDOs in this investigation.) The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in paragraphs 337(d)(1) and (f)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1), do not preclude issuance of these remedial orders. Finally, the Commission has determined that the bond during the period of Presidential review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported articles. The Commission's order was delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of its issuance. The investigation is hereby terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to vacate the portion of its final determination relating to United States Patent No. 5,904,172 (“the '172 patent”) and its limited exclusion order based thereon.
Michael Liberman, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
On December 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order holding that the appeal in
The Federal Circuit appeal at issue stemmed from Investigation No. 337-TA-971,
On November 18, 2016, the presiding Administrative Law Judge issued a final initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of section 337 with respect to either patent. The Commission determined to review the ID in part, and on review, the Commission found a violation of section 337 with regard to the '172 patent and issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of infringing air mattress systems, components thereof, and methods of using the same.
On July 19, 2017, Respondents filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit requesting review of the Commission's final determination regarding the '172 patent. Appeal No. 2017-2334. On October 18, 2017, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the '172 patent had expired on July 28, 2017. Respondents did not object to the dismissal but requested vacatur of the Commission's final determination. Complainants also did not object to dismissal, but did object to vacatur. On December 26, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued its Order in which the Commission's motion was “granted to the extent that the appeal is deemed moot and the case is remanded for the Commission to address whether to vacate its final determination relating to the '172 patent.” Court Order at 3.
On February 26, 2018, the Commission ordered the parties to submit comments on whether the Commission should vacate its final determination regarding the '172 patent. Commission Order at 3. All relevant
The Commission has determined to vacate the portion of its final determination relating to the '172 patent and its limited exclusion order based thereon. The Commission's opinion is being issued concurrently herewith. The Commission hereby terminates this investigation.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On January 22, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed a Complaint in this lawsuit seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief from Defendant Gulfport Energy Corporation (“Gulfport”) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, at multiple oil and gas production well pads that Gulfport owns and operates in eastern Ohio (the “Facilities”). The United States' Complaint alleges that Gulfport has violated statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to storage tanks at the Facilities arising under the Clean Air Act and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency establishing standards of performance for crude oil and natural gas production, transmission, and distribution facilities (codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO), as well as corresponding requirements in Gulfport's Clean Air Act operating permits for the Facilities.
When the Complaint was filed, the United States also lodged a proposed Consent Decree that would settle the claims asserted in the Complaint. Among other things, the proposed Consent Decree would require Gulfport to implement appropriate injunctive relief to control air pollutant emissions from storage tanks at the Facilities, undertake additional mitigation measures to help offset unauthorized past air pollutant emissions, and pay a total of $1,700,000 in civil penalties (plus interest) to the United States.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
We will provide a paper copy of the proposed Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
Please enclose a check or money order for $25.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
Notice of meeting.
The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention announces its next meeting.
Wednesday March 4th, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
The meeting will take place in the third floor main conference room at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20531.
Visit the website for the Coordinating Council at
The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“Council”), established by statute in the Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 section 206(a) (42 U.S.C. 5616(a)), will meet to carry out its advisory functions. Information regarding this meeting will be available on the Council's web page at
Although designated agency representatives may attend in lieu of members, the Council's formal membership consists of the following secretaries and/or agency officials; Attorney General (Chair), Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Secretary of Labor (DOL), Secretary of Education (DOE), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader and the President of the United States. Further agencies that take part in Council activities include, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior and the
Council meeting agendas are available on
For security purposes and because space is limited, members of the public who wish to attend must register in advance of the meeting online at the meeting registration site, no later than Friday Feburary 28th, 2020. Should issues arise with online registration, or to register by fax or email, the public should contact Maegen Barnes, Senior Program Manager/Federal Contractor (see above for contact information). If submitting registrations via fax or email, attendees should include all of the following: Name, Title, Organization/Affiliation, Full Address, Phone Number, Fax and Email. The meeting will also be available to join online via Webex, a video conferencing platform. Registration for this is also found online at
Photo identification will be required to attend the meeting at the OJP 810 7th Street Building.
Interested parties may submit written comments and questions in advance to Elizabeth Wolfe (DFO) for the Council, at the contact information above. If faxing, please follow up with Maegen Barnes, Senior Program Manager/Federal Contractor (contact information above) in order to assure receipt of submissions. All comments and questions should be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday Feburary 28th, 2020.
The Council will limit public statements if they are found to be duplicative. Written questions submitted by the public while in attendance will also be considered by the Council.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL or Department) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Domestic Agricultural In-Season Wage Report,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before February 27, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064 (these are not toll-free numbers), or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the “Domestic Agricultural In-Season Wage Report” information collection. The Department's ETA needs prevailing wage rates in order to determine the appropriate rate agricultural employers should pay foreign and domestic farmworkers. The State Workforce Agencies are charged with collecting the data from agricultural employers. The wage rates cover agricultural (crop and livestock) and logging jobs. Domestic migrant and local seasonal as well as foreign H-2A farmworkers are hired for these jobs
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB control number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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 (
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before February 27, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Youthful Offender Grants Management Information System information collection. This data collection request is to permit the Department of Labor to continue a management information system for these various sets of grantees. This request continues the reporting and recordkeeping system for a minimum level of information collection that is necessary to comply with Equal Opportunity requirements, to hold Youthful Offender grantees appropriately accountable for the Federal funds they receive, including performance measures, and to allow the Department to fulfill its oversight and management responsibilities
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before February 27, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard information collection. The Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard specifies a number of information collection requirements. Employers can use the information collected under the HAZWOPER rule to develop the various programs the Standard requires and to ensure that their workers are trained properly about the safety and health hazards associated with hazardous waste operations and emergency response to hazardous waste releases. OSHA will use the records developed in response to this Standard to determine adequate compliance with the Standard's safety and health provisions. The employer's failure to collect and distribute the information required in this standard will affect significantly OSHA's effort to control and reduce injuries and fatalities. Such failure would also be contrary to the direction Congress provided in Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Hexavalent Chromium standards for General Industry, Shipyard Employment, and Construction” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before February 27, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov website at
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Hexavalent Chromium standards for General Industry, Shipyard Employment, and Construction information collection. These information collection requirements protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. The major information collection requirements in the standards include conducting worker exposure monitoring, notifying workers of their chromium exposures, implementing medical surveillance of workers, providing examining physicians with specific information, implementing a respiratory protection program, notifying laundry personnel of chromium hazards, and maintaining workers' exposure monitoring and medical surveillance records for specific periods.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Application for Approval of a Representative's fee in Black Lung Claim Proceedings Conducted by U.S. Department of Labor.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by March 30, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free by contacting Anjanette Suggs by telephone at 202-354-9660 or by email at
Submit written comments about this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Program, Room S3323, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; or by email at
Anjanette Suggs by telephone at 202-354-9660 or by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The authorized representative of a black lung claimant whose claim for benefits has been approved uses a CM-972 to claim a fee for their services. The completed form is filed with and evaluated by the district director, administrative law judge, or appropriate appellate tribunal before whom the claimed services were performed, and a fee amount is determined. The regulations (20 CFR 725.366) set forth specific requirements for the items of information that must be included on fee applications. The CM-972 was designed to collect this information.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and the collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and may be posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection—renewal of existing information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by February 27, 2020.
All comments should be addressed to Claire Little, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001 or call 202-358-2375.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Claire Little, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, DC 20546 or email
This collection of information supports the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, to create opportunities to improve processes associated with the evaluation and selection of individuals to participate in the NASA Astronaut Candidate Selection Program. The NASA Astronaut Selection Office (ASO) located at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas is responsible for selecting astronauts for the various United States Space Exploration programs. In evaluating an applicant for the Astronaut Candidate Program, it is important that the ASO have the benefit of qualitative and quantitative information and recommendations from persons who have been directly associated with the applicant over the course of their career.
This information will be used by the NASA ASO and Human Resources (HR) personnel, during the candidate selection process (approx. 2 year duration), to gain insight into the candidates' work ethic and professionalism as demonstrated in previous related employment activities. Respondents may include the astronaut candidate's previous employer(s)/direct-reporting manager, as well as co-workers and other references provided by the candidate.
Electronic and optionally by paper.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection—new information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by February 27, 2020.
All comments should be addressed to Claire Little, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001 or call 202-358-2375.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Claire Little, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, 202-358-2375 or email
NASA Software Release Request System (SRRS) is a workflow tool that allows Agency Software Release Authorities (SRAs) to easily develop and route software release documents, such as the Software Release Request Authorization (SRRA) and Section 508 Compliance Matrix in an automated fashion. SRAs have the added ability to perform parallel routing, including the use of time-based email reminders, tracking and reporting progress on the processing of the software release requests so they can effectively manage this process at their respective centers. Software owners/developers can submit the Software Release Requests or view their submitted Software Release Requests that may need their attention.
Web Based—only accessible via NASA's internal network (e.g., on site or remotely via a NASA issued VPN).
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). We publish notice in the
NARA must receive comments by March 13, 2020.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods. You must cite the control number, which appears on the records schedule in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule.
Kimberly Keravuori, Records Management Operations by email at
We are publishing notice of records schedules in which agencies propose to dispose of records they no longer need to conduct agency business. We invite public comments on these records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a), and list the schedules at the end of this notice by agency and subdivision requesting disposition authority.
In addition, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability. It also provides the control number assigned to each schedule, which you will need if you submit comments on that schedule. We have uploaded the records schedules and accompanying appraisal memoranda to the
We will post comments, including any personal information and attachments, to the public docket unchanged. Because comments are public, you are responsible for ensuring that you do not include any confidential or other information that you or a third party may not wish to be publicly posted. If you want to submit a comment with confidential information or cannot otherwise use the
We will consider all comments submitted by the posted deadline and consult as needed with the Federal agency seeking the disposition authority. After considering comments, we will post on
We will post schedules on our website in the Records Control Schedule (RCS) Repository, at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives or to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking continuing administrative, legal, research, or other value. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value. Public review and comment on these records schedules is part of the Archivist's consideration process.
1. Department of Defense, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, Background Investigation Records (DAA-0446-2019-0004).
2. Department of Defense, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, Secure Web Fingerprint Transmission (SWFT) System Records (DAA-0446-2019-0006).
3. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Case Files and Litigation Records (DAA-0443-2019-0008).
4. National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, Agency-wide, Commission Records (DAA-0220-2020-0001).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to section 189.a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from December 31, 2019, to January 13, 2020. The last biweekly notice was published on January 14, 2020.
Comments must be filed by February 27, 2020. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by March 30, 2020.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 301-415-1506, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0025, when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0025, in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown below, the Commission finds that the licensee's analyses provided, consistent with title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The table below provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensee's proposed NSHC determination. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action, see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, including the applicable notice period, see the individual notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 27, February 3, 10, 17, 24, March 2, 2020.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 10, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 17, 2020.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Notice.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy publishes the names of the members selected to serve on its SES Performance Review Board (PRB).
Membership is effective on the date of this notice to January 2022.
Ms. Stacy L. Murphy, Operations Manager, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20504. Telephone 202-456-6123.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The purpose of this PRB is to review and make recommendations concerning proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of the SES positions. The Board shall consist of at least three members and more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees. The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:
On December 2, 2019, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Following certain events in the credit default swap (“CDS”)
The NTCE Supplement, if applied to a CDS transaction, would make two principal changes to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions to address narrowly-tailored credit events.
Second, the NTCE Supplement would reduce the amount of payout a CDS protection buyer could claim in certain circumstances by imposing a new provision for Fallback Discounting. Fallback Discounting would discount a CDS protection buyer's claim for payout under a CDS contract where that claim for payout is based on an obligation issued by a corporation at a discount.
As described below, the proposed rule change would apply the NTCE Supplement to any non-sovereign single-name and index CDS contract that incorporates the 2014 ISDA definitions (a “2014-type CDS Contract”) and that is open on, or entered into after, January 27, 2020 (or such later date as designated by ICE Clear Europe by Circular).
The proposed rule change would add new defined terms to the CDS Procedures to include new definitions related to the NTCE Supplement. The proposed rule change would further define the effective date of the changes, the “NTCE Protocol Effective Date,” as January 27, 2020, or such later date as designated by ICE Clear Europe by Circular.
The proposed rule change would next incorporate these new definitions into the defined terms associated with non-
In addition to this change, the proposed rule change would make specific changes to the terms associated with single-name CDS and index CDS to update those terms in light of the NTCE Supplement. With respect to single-name CDS, the proposed rule change would update certain single-name CDS contracts that are open on the NTCE Protocol Effective Date to reference the new physical settlement matrix that will apply to new single-name CDS entered into after the NTCE Protocol Effective Date. This change would apply to CDS with non-sovereign reference entities that are 2014-type CDS Contracts.
With respect to index CDS, the proposed rule change would amend the terms associated with index CDS contracts to include the new standard terms supplement and confirmations issued in response to the NTCE Supplement. Such new standard terms supplement and confirmations would incorporate the NTCE Supplement. For new index CDS, the proposed rule change would apply the new standard terms supplement and confirmations incorporating the NTCE Supplement to any index CDS submitted for clearing on or after the NTCE Protocol Effective Date. For open index CDS, the proposed rule change would apply the NTCE Supplement to 2014-type CDS Contracts and those that include a 2014-type CDS Contract as a component position on the NTCE Protocol Effective Date. The proposed rule change therefore would convert existing index CDS contracts to reference the new standard terms incorporating the NTCE Supplement, thereby ensuring that those existing contracts would be fungible with new index CDS contracts after the NTCE Protocol Effective Date.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
As described above, the NTCE Supplement would amend the underlying legal terms applicable to CDS contracts to which it applies by, among other things, limiting Credit Events to those that reflect a deterioration in the creditworthiness or financial condition of the relevant company. It also would reduce the amount of payout a CDS protection buyer could claim in certain circumstances where the claim for payout is based on an obligation issued by a company at a discount. Further, because ISDA has determined that the Protocol Effectiveness Condition is satisfied and set an implementation date of January 27, 2020, the NTCE Supplement will apply to all single-name CDS contracts and components of index CDS contracts that incorporate the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions currently in place or entered into on or after that date.
As noted above, because ICE Clear Europe will clear and settle CDS contracts that are subject to the changes being made by the NTCE Supplement, the proposed rule change would amend the CDS Procedures to incorporate the amendments resulting from the NTCE Supplement, thereby ensuring that ICE Clear Europe's CDS Procedures accurately reflect and appropriately apply the legal terms and conditions applicable to such CDS contracts.
In the Commission's view, a lack of clarity in the underlying legal terms and conditions applicable to the transactions that ICE Clear Europe clears and settles could hinder ICE Clear Europe's ability to promptly and accurately clear and settle such transactions. Likewise, disputes regarding the applicable legal terms and conditions of such transactions could lead to disputes or confusion regarding the necessary and appropriate margin submitted in connection with such transactions, thereby threatening ICE Clear Europe's ability to safeguard such margin. Accordingly, by making the changes described above, and in particular by ensuring ICE Clear Europe's CDS Procedures accurately reflect and appropriately apply the legal terms and conditions applicable to the CDS contracts that are cleared and settled by ICE Clear Europe, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change would help ensure that ICE Clear Europe's CDS Procedures continue to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such CDS contracts and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody and control. For these same reasons the Commission also finds that the proposed rule change would, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed Amendment has been filed by the Participants pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.
Section XI(a) of the Plan currently prohibits the Processor from including any reports of last sale prices in an Eligible Security during a Regulatory Halt, even if the Processor receives a report due to a race condition or a late print where the trade occurred prior to the Regulatory Halt. The Processor only disseminates these reports of last sale prices after the Regulatory Halt is lifted or after the close of the market. In particular, when a primary market initiates a Regulatory Halt, it sends notifications to the Processor and other Participants. A trade may occur at a Participant before that Participant receives notification of the Regulatory Halt while a report of the trade is made to the Processor after the Processor receives notification of the Regulatory Halt. This race condition currently results in a transaction occurring at a Participant while the Processor delays the dissemination of the trade report.
With respect to the UTP Plan, the Processor will immediately disseminate such reports of last sale prices that occurred prior to the Regulatory Halt but received by the Processor after the Regulatory Halt. The Participants, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, have deemed it appropriate to align the operation of the Plan with the operation of the UTP Plan. As a result, the Participants are amending the language of the Plan to permit the dissemination of reports of last sale prices during a Regulatory Halt.
In addition, while the primary aim of this Amendment is to address situations associated with the race condition described above, it would be impractical for the Processor to determine that a transaction occurred either before or after a Participant received notification of a Regulatory Halt, and therefore whether to immediately disseminate or refrain from disseminating the trade report until permissible. Consequently, the Participants believe that it is appropriate to place the responsibility on the individual Participants to determine whether or not a transaction should be printed during a Regulatory Halt, and the Processor should simply act as a pass-through for the information that it receives from the Participants. Therefore, the Amendment will permit the Processor to disseminate any reports of last sale prices received during a Regulatory Halt, without reference to the specific race condition identified above.
The Participants also proposes a non-substantive amendment to update cross references to the rules of NYSE and NYSE American in Section XI.(a) of the Plan. Currently, the Plan refers to NYSE Rule 123D and AMEX Rule 119 as the rules that set forth those exchange's reopening procedures. The Participants propose to update those references to NYSE Rule 7.35 Series and NYSE American Rule 7.35E, which are the operative rules of those respective exchanges relating to reopening procedures.
Not applicable.
Each of the Participants has approved the amendments in accordance with Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) of the CQ Plan, as applicable. The Participants also received feedback from the Advisory Committee on aligning the operation of the Plan with the UTP Plan.
Not applicable.
The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). The Participants believe that aligning the operation of the Plan with the UTP Plan with respect to dissemination of information during Regulatory Halts reduces inefficiencies and confusion among market participants with respect to the operation of the Plan and the UTP Plan during a Regulatory Halt. Additionally, the Participants believe that the amendment will serve to increase transparency in the marketplace by disseminating reports of last sale prices closer in time to when such transactions actually occurred.
Not applicable.
Section IV(c)(i) of the CQ Plan and Section IV(b)(i) of the CTA Plan require the Participants to unanimously approve the amendments proposed herein. They so approved it.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
As a result of the amendment, the Processor would be required to disseminate reports of last sale prices for transactions received by the Processor during a Regulatory Halt.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendment. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed Amendment has been filed by the Participants pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.
Section X of the Plan currently includes inconsistent language with respect to the Processor's ability to disseminate last sale price reports in an Eligible Security during a Regulatory Halt. Section X.A prohibits the Processor from including any last sale reports in an Eligible Security during a Regulatory Halt. Section X.C, however, includes language that specifically permits the Processor during a Regulatory Halt to “collect and disseminate Transaction Information.”
In practice, during a Regulatory Halt, the Processor has been following Section X.C and will immediately disseminate last sale price reports during a Regulatory Halt. The Participants believe that the Processor's current practice helps to reduce inefficiencies and confusion among market participants with respect to the operation of the Plan during a Regulatory Halt. As a result, the Participants have determined it appropriate to amend the language of the Plan to resolve the inconsistent language described above in order to confirm that the Processor may continue to disseminate last sale price reports during a Regulatory Halt. In addition, the Amendment would also align the Plan language with a corresponding Amendment being proposed by the CTA Plan.
Further, the Participants believe that the Amendment would help avoid race conditions. By way of example, when a primary market initiates a Regulatory Halt, it sends notifications to the Processor and other Participants. A trade may occur at a Participant before that Participant receives notification of the Regulatory Halt and thereby reports the trade to the Processor after the Processor receives notification of the Regulatory Halt. The Participants believe it would be impractical for the Processor to determine that a transaction occurred either before or after a Participant received notification of a Regulatory Halt, and therefore whether to immediately disseminate or refrain from disseminating the trade report until permissible. Consequently, the Participants believe that it is appropriate to place the responsibility on the individual Participants to determine whether or not a transaction should be printed during a Regulatory Halt, and the Processor should simply act as a pass-through for the information that it receives from the Participants. Therefore, the Amendment will permit the Processor to continue to disseminate any last sale price reports received during a Regulatory Halt, without reference to the specific race condition identified above.
Not applicable.
Each of the Participants has approved the Amendment in accordance with Section IV.C of the UTP Plan. The Participants also received feedback from the Advisory Committee on amending the Plan to resolve ambiguous language in the Plan to confirm that the Processor may disseminate last sale price reports and align the Plan with the corresponding Amendment proposed by the CTA Plan.
Not applicable.
The Participants believe that the proposed Amendment do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Participants believe that amending the Plan to resolve inconsistent language
Not applicable.
Section IV.C.l of the UTP Plan requires the Participants to unanimously approve the Amendment proposed herein. They so approved it.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Amendment would resolve ambiguous Plan language to clarify that the Processor may continue to disseminate Transaction Reports of last sale prices for transactions received by the Processor during a Regulatory Halt.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendment. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7-24-89 and should be submitted on or before February 18, 2020.
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4473-DR), dated 01/22/2020.
Issued on 01/22/2020.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Puerto Rico, dated 01/16/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Francis Bacon: Late Paintings,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas, from on or about February 23, 2020, until on or about May 25, 2020; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be exhibited in the exhibition “J.M.W. Turner: Quest for the Sublime,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Frist Art Museum, Nashville, Tennessee, from on or about February 20, 2020, until on or about May 31, 2020, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be exhibited in the exhibition “Mesopotamia: Civilization Begins,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Villa, Pacific Palisades, California, from on or about March 18, 2020, until on or about July 27, 2020, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be exhibited in the exhibition “A Superb Baroque: Art in Genoa, 1600-1750,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, District of Columbia, from on or about May 3, 2020, until on or about August 16, 2020, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be exhibited in the exhibition “The Classical World in Context: Persia,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Villa, Pacific Palisades, California, from on or about March 17, 2021, until on or about August 30, 2021, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
This action announces April 1, 2020, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA if it will use its Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 entitlement funds (also referred to as apportioned funds) to accomplish Airport Improvement Program (AIP) eligible projects. Each sponsor has previously identified to the FAA such projects through the Airports Capital Improvement Plan process. This action further announces May 18, 2020, as the deadline for an airport sponsor to submit a final grant application to use FY 2020 entitlement funds.
Dave Cushing, Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, at (202) 267-8827.
Title 49 U.S.C. 47105(f) provides that the sponsor of an airport for which entitlement funds are apportioned shall notify the Secretary, by such time and in a form as prescribed by the Secretary, of the airport sponsor's intent to submit a grant application for its available
The AIP grant program is operating under the requirements of Public Law 115-254, the “FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018,” enacted on October 5, 2018, which authorizes the FAA through September 30, 2023, and Public Law 116-94, the “Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020,” which appropriates FY 2020 funds for the AIP through September 30, 2020. In accordance with legislation enacted as of the date of this notice, the AIP has approximately $2.4 billion of entitlement funds available through September 30, 2020.
This notice applies only to those airports that have entitlement funds apportioned to them, except those nonprimary airports located in designated Block Grant States.
Under 49 U.S.C. 47114(d)(3)(C), an airport listed as having an unclassified status under the most recent National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, shall accrue entitlement funds in FY 2020. The amount apportioned will only be available to the airport during the same fiscal year and may not be transferred to another airport.
An airport sponsor intending to apply for any of its available entitlement funds, including those unused from prior years, must notify the FAA of its intent to submit a grant application by 12:00 p.m. prevailing local time on Wednesday, April 1, 2020.
This notice must be in writing and address all entitlement funds available to date for FY 2020, including those entitlement funds not obligated from prior years. These notifications are critical to ensure efficient planning and administration of the AIP. The final grant application deadline is Monday, May 18, 2020. The final grant application funding requests are to be based on bids, not estimates.
An airport sponsor must provide its notification and grant applications to its designated FAA Airports District Office (or Regional Office in regions without Airports District Offices). Absent notification of the intent to submit a grant application, or submission of a grant application by the relevant deadlines noted above, the FAA will carry over the remainder of available entitlement funds on Monday, June 1, 2020. These funds will not be available again until at least the beginning of FY 2021. Dates are subject to possible adjustment based on future legislation. As of the publication of this notice, appropriations for the FAA expire on September 30, 2020, and authorization legislation for the FAA expires on September 30, 2023.
The FAA has determined this process and deadline will expedite and facilitate the FY 2020 grant-making process.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more aircraft that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these vessels are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On January 21, 2020, OFAC determined that the following aircraft subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. YV1118; Aircraft Model Learjet 45; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 45-396; Aircraft Tail Number YV1118 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to Executive Order 13884, “Blocking Property of the Government of Venezuela,” 84 FR 38843 (“E.O. 13884”) as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
2. YV2040; Aircraft Model Falcon 900B; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 133; Aircraft Tail Number YV2040 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
3. YV2485; Aircraft Model Falcon 900EX; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 196; Aircraft Tail Number YV2485 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
4. YV2486; Aircraft Model Falcon 900EX; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 197; Aircraft Tail Number YV2486 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
5. YV2565; Aircraft Model Learjet 45; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 45-389; Aircraft Tail Number YV2565 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
6. YV2567; Aircraft Model Learjet 45; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 45-390; Aircraft Tail Number YV2567 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
7. YV2716; Aircraft Model Learjet 45; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 45-415; Aircraft Tail Number YV2716 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property
8. YV2726; Aircraft Model Falcon 900; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 136; Aircraft Tail Number YV2726 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
9. YV2734; Aircraft Model Learjet 45; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 45-407; Aircraft Tail Number YV2734 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
10. YV2738; Aircraft Model Learjet 45; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 45-424; Aircraft Tail Number YV2738 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
11. YV2739; Aircraft Model Learjet 45; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 45-425; Aircraft Tail Number YV2739 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
12. YV2762; Aircraft Model 1900D; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) UE-275; Aircraft Tail Number YV2762 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
13. YV2763; Aircraft Model 1900D; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) UE-236; Aircraft Tail Number YV2763 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
14. YV2869; Aircraft Model 1900D; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) UE-352; Aircraft Tail Number YV2869 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
15. YV3360; Aircraft Model Falcon 200EX; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 17; Aircraft Tail Number YV3360 (aircraft) [VENEZUELA-EO13884].
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13884 as property in which the Government of Venezuela, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13884, has an interest.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint announces 2020 revisions to include price increases for the Platinum Proof coins within the Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, Platinum, and Palladium Products Grid.
An excerpt of the grid with a recent price range for the American Eagle Platinum Proof coin appears below:
The complete 2020 Pricing of Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, Platinum, and Palladium Products Grid will be available at
Pricing can vary weekly depending upon the London Bullion Market Association gold, platinum, and palladium prices weekly average. The pricing for all United States Mint numismatic gold, platinum, and palladium products is evaluated every Wednesday and modified as necessary.
Cathy Olson; Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112, & 9701.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that a meeting of the National Academic Affiliations Council (NAAC) will be held March 11, 2020-March 12, 2020 at the VA Conference Room 230, 2nd Floor, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. The meetings will be held:
The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary on matters affecting partnerships between VA and its academic affiliates.
On March 11, 2020 the Council will explore the VA Electronic Health Record Modernization as related to education and research, discuss VA trainee onboarding, and trainee recruitment and hiring. The Council will have open discussions and receive public comments from 4:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
On March 12, 2020 the Council will have open discussion with NAAC members and receive a presentation from the Strategic Academic Advisory Council (SAAC) and an update on recent activities of the Diversity and Inclusion Subcommittee and MISSION Act (Pub. L. 115-182) provisions related to health professions education. The Council will receive a status update on Academic Partnership Councils in VA. The Council will receive public comments from 4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the Council. A sign-in sheet for those who want to give comments will be available at the meeting. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2-page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Council prior to the meeting or at any time, via email to,
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 30, 2020.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Aubrey David at 202-461-6739.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, NCA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 30, 2020.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Danny S. Green, (202) 421-1354 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. VA Form 26-1820 is completed by lenders closing VA-guaranteed and insured loans under the automatic or prior approval procedures.
b. VA Form 26-8497 is used by lenders to verify a loan applicant's income and employment information when making guaranteed and insured loans. VA does not require the exclusive use of this form for verification purposes, any alternative verification document would be acceptable provided that all information requested on VA Form 26-8497 is provided.
c. Lenders making guaranteed and insured loans complete VA Form 26-8497a to verify the applicant's deposits in banks and other savings institutions.
By direction of the Secretary:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish (
We will accept comments on the proposed rule or draft economic analysis (DEA) that are received or postmarked on or before March 30, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record for this critical habitat designation and are available at
Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Atlantic-Appalachian Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413-253-8615. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The critical habitat areas we are proposing to designate in this rule constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. We propose to designate:
• Approximately 582 stream kilometers (skm) (362 stream miles (smi)) of streams for the Big Sandy crayfish.
• Approximately 135 skm (84 smi) of streams for the Guyandotte River crayfish.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(a) Are the species threatened by taking or other human activity, and would identification of critical habitat be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species?
(b) Is the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range a threat to the species, or do the threats to the species' habitats stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act?
(c) Do any areas meet the definition of critical habitat?
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why. We particularly seek comments regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of the species; and
(ii) Specific information that supports the determination that unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible effects on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant effects of designating any area that may be included in the final designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may be affected.
(5) Information on the extent to which the description of probable economic effects in the draft economic analysis (DEA) is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic effects.
(6) Information on land ownership within proposed critical habitat areas, particularly tribal land ownership (allotments, trust, and/or fee) so that the Service may best implement Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act).
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Specific information we seek includes information on any conservation plans within the proposed critical habitat areas that provide conservation for the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes and their habitats.
(8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note also that comments merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that we must make determinations “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified above in
Federal actions prior to April 7, 2015, are described in the proposed rule to list the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish under the Act (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015).
On April 7, 2016 (81 FR 20450), we listed the Big Sandy crayfish as a threatened species and the Guyandotte River crayfish as an endangered species. In the April 7, 2015, proposed listing rule (80 FR 18710), we stated that designating critical habitat at that time
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands or require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the specific features that support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information from the species status assessment (SSA) report, if available, and information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by states and counties; scientific surveys
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for the recovery of the species. Areas that are important for the conservation of the listed species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts indicates a different outcome.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species' habitat stem from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) After analyzing the best scientific data available, the Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent.
We did not identify any of the factors above to apply to the Big Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River crayfish. Therefore, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking; or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”
As we discussed in the proposed rule (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015) and in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)), we concluded that critical habitat was not determinable at that time because we were seeking additional information on the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, but that we would make a critical habitat determination no later than 1 year following publication of the final listing rule. We have since received and reviewed additional data on the biological needs of these species and the habitat characteristics where they are located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available and lead us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential to support the life history of the species. In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species. We derived the specific physical or biological features required for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish from studies and observations of these species' habitat, ecology, and life history, which are discussed in full in the species' proposed and final listing rules (80 FR 18710, April 7, 2015; 81 FR 20450, April 7, 2016, respectively). The primary habitat elements that influence resiliency of these species include, but are not limited to, the degree of sedimentation, water quality thresholds, and extent of habitat connectedness.
We derived the specific physical or biological features required for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish from studies and observations of these species' habitat, ecology, and life history, which are discussed in full in the species' proposed and final listing rules (80 FR 18710, April 7, 2015; 81 FR 20450, April 7, 2016, respectively), and summarized here. While data are sparse with which to quantitatively define the optimal or range of suitable conditions for a specific biological or physical feature needed by these species (
Suitable habitat for both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish appears to be limited to higher elevation, clean, medium-sized streams and rivers in the upper reaches of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte river basins, respectively (Jezerinac
(1) Fast-flowing stream reaches with unembedded slab boulders, cobbles, or isolated boulder clusters within an unobstructed stream continuum (
(2) Streams and rivers with natural variations in flow and seasonal flooding sufficient to effectively transport sediment and prevent substrate embeddedness.
(3) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated temperatures and physical and chemical parameters (
(4) An adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, and plant matter (
(5) Aquatic habitats protected from riparian and instream activities that degrade the physical and biological features described in (1) through (4), above, or cause physical (
(6) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the physical and biological features described in (1) through (4), above, that allow for the movement of individual crayfish in response to environmental, physiological, or behavioral drivers. The scale of the interconnected stream network should be sufficient to allow for gene flow within and among watersheds.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes may require special management considerations or protections to reduce the following threats: (1) Resource extraction (coal mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development); (2) road construction and maintenance (including unpaved roads and trails); (3) instream dredging or construction projects; (4) off-road vehicle (ORV) use; and (5) other sources of non-point source pollution. These activities are discussed in more detail under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species in the final listing rule (81 FR 20450; April 7, 2016). These threats are in addition to potential adverse effects of drought, floods, or other natural phenomena.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to: Use of best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and stream bank destruction; development of alternatives that avoid and minimize stream bed disturbances; regulation of ORV use in or near streams; and reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that contribute excess sediments or pollutants into the water.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish at the time of listing in 2016. For the Guyandotte River crayfish, we also are proposing to designate three specific streams outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing because we have determined that a designation limited to occupied areas would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. These currently unoccupied streams are within the larger occupied watershed of the Guyandotte River crayfish's range and adjacent to currently occupied streams. Proposed critical habitat includes the water and stream channel up to the ordinary high water mark as defined at 33 CFR 329.11.
The current distribution of both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes is fragmented and much reduced from their historical distributions. As specified in the Service's recovery outline for these species (Service 2018, entire), we anticipate that recovery will require protection of existing populations and habitat for both species, and in the case of the Guyandotte River crayfish,
Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation include crayfish survey and habitat assessment reports (Jezerinac
As described in the final listing rule for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes (81 FR 20450; April 7, 2016), the best available data (stream surveys conducted between 2006 and 2016) indicate that at the time of listing, the Big Sandy crayfish occupied 26 streams and rivers (generally third order and larger) in the Russell Fork, Upper Levisa Fork, Lower Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork watersheds in the upper Big Sandy River basin of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Guyandotte River crayfish occupied two similarly-sized streams in the Upper Guyandotte River basin of West Virginia.
We propose to designate a total of 4 occupied units, including a total of 19 occupied subunits, as critical habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish in the aforementioned watersheds. In addition, we propose to designate one unit, including two occupied subunits, as critical habitat for the Guyandotte River crayfish in the Upper Guyandotte River watershed in West Virginia. For the Guyandotte River crayfish, we have determined that a designation limited to the two occupied subunits would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. The Guyandotte River crayfish is historically known from six connected stream systems within the Upper Guyandotte River basin (its geographical range); however, at the time of listing, the species was limited to two isolated subunits in Pinnacle Creek and Clear Fork. In our review, we determined that these two subunits do not provide sufficient redundancy or resiliency necessary for the conservation of the species. The Pinnacle Creek population is known from a 5.2-skm (3.3-smi) stream reach, and survey data collected between 2009 and 2015 indicate that this area has low crayfish numbers. This small, isolated population is at risk of extirpation from demographic and environmental stochasticity, and a catastrophic event. The Clear Fork population occurs along a 33-skm (22-smi) stream reach, and surveys from 2015 indicate several sites with “robust” crayfish numbers. The primary risk to this population is extirpation from a catastrophic event; however, because it is an isolated population, demographic or stochastic declines present some risk.
Because we have determined occupied areas alone are not adequate for the conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish, we have evaluated whether any unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We are proposing as critical habitat three currently unoccupied subunits within the Upper Guyandotte basin unit. We have determined that each is essential for the conservation of the species. Two of the currently unoccupied subunits, Guyandotte River and Indian Creek, provide for an increase in the species' redundancy and, by providing connectivity between the subunits, increase the resiliency of the extant populations in Pinnacle Creek and Clear Fork. One of the proposed unoccupied subunits, Huff Creek, is isolated from the other units by the R.D. Bailey dam, but provides for increased overall redundancy of the species and adds representation in this area of its historical range. As discussed in the recovery outline for the species (Service 2018, entire), successful conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish will require the establishment of additional populations within the species' historical range; the three proposed unoccupied subunits advance this goal. All three subunits have at least one of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. To reduce threats to the species and its habitat, the Service is working cooperatively with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and the coal industry to develop protection and enhancement plans for coal mining permits that may affect crayfish streams and the Hatfield McCoy Trail system and the Federal Highway Administration to avoid and minimize effects from ORV use in and around Pinnacle Creek and other trail systems adjacent to crayfish streams. In addition, the Service, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and West Liberty University are working together to conduct additional research on both the Guyandotte River and Big Sandy crayfishes, including research on habitat use and activity patterns and captive holding and propagation. We are reasonably certain that each unoccupied subunit will contribute to the conservation of the species by furthering the preliminary recovery goals identified in the recovery outline of increasing the Guyandotte River crayfish's resiliency, redundancy and representation. Bolstering the species' viability will reduce the species' risk of extinction.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation in the discussion of individual units and subunits, below. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
Under §§ 424.12(b)(1) and (2) of the implementing regulations, the Service determines the appropriate scale for designating critical habitat. This is further clarified in the final rule titled, “Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat” (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016; see Discussion of Changes to Part 424 in that rule): The Service “cannot and need not make determinations at an infinitely fine scale.” Thus, the Service need not determine that each square inch, square yard, acre, or even square mile independently meets the definition of “critical habitat.” In making its determination on the appropriate scale for designating critical habitat, the Service may consider, among other things, the life history of the species, the scales at which data are available, and biological or geophysical boundaries (such as watersheds). For the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes, we propose that streams or stream segments (as opposed to individual occurrence locations) are the appropriate units for designating critical habitat. We base this on the following factors:
(1) The regional geology and stream morphology in the upper Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River basins lead to a general abundance of slab boulders and/or cobble in most streams, although in some areas this habitat is sparse or occurs as isolated boulder clusters. Furthermore, while continuous crayfish survey data do not exist (
(2) Streams are dynamic, linear systems, and local water quality parameters (
(3) Studies of other crayfish species suggest that adult and larger juvenile Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish likely move both upstream and downstream in response to changes in environmental conditions or local crayfish demographics, or for other behavioral or physiological reasons (Momot 1966, pp. 158-159; Kerby
Therefore, within the greater geographical ranges of the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish (
In summary, we propose to designate as critical habitat streams and stream segments up to the ordinary high water mark that were occupied at the time of listing and contain one or more of the physical and biological features to support the life-history processes essential to the conservation of the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish. Additionally, for the Guyandotte River crayfish, we propose to designate three subunits outside the geographical range of that species occupied at the time of listing; however, these subunits are within the larger occupied watershed. Two of these subunits have historical records of the species, and one subunit, while not having a record of the species, is within its historical range and provides connectivity between occupied and unoccupied subunits. These unoccupied subunits provide for increased redundancy, resiliency, and representation of the Guyandotte River crayfish. We propose specific critical habitat unit/subunit boundaries based on the following general criteria:
(1) We delineated areas within the historical range of each species that had positive survey data between 2006 and 2016 (the time of listing). For the Guyandotte River crayfish, we also delineated three stream segments as unoccupied critical habitat.
(2) Upstream termini of proposed critical habitat units/subunits are located at the confluence of the primary stream and a smaller named tributary stream (usually a second-order stream). These termini are generally within about 5 skm (3.1 smi) upstream of a known crayfish occurrence record. The downstream termini are usually located at the confluence of the primary stream and the next larger receiving stream or river. In some instances, dams or reservoirs are used to demark critical habitat units/subunits.
(3) We included intervening stream segments between occurrence locations unless there are data suggesting the physical and biological features required by the species are absent in the intervening segment.
(4) We describe the proposed critical habitat units/subunits by their upstream and downstream coordinates (
Within these stream segments, proposed critical habitat includes the stream channel within the ordinary high water mark. As defined at 33 CFR 329.11, the “ordinary high water mark” on nontidal rivers is the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter and debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
For the purposes of analyzing the potential economic effects of proposed critical habitat designation for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, the critical habitat units/subunits are determined to be in either private, Federal, or State ownership. In Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, jurisdiction over the water itself is maintained by the State or
For the Big Sandy crayfish, we propose to designate approximately 582 skm (362 smi) in 4 units (including 19 subunits) in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia as critical habitat (see table 1, below). These streams or stream segments are considered occupied at the time of listing and represent the entire known range of the species and all extant populations. Based on our review, we conclude that the units occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish at the time of listing (described below) are representative of the species' historical range and include core population areas in the Russell Fork watershed in Virginia and the upper Tug Fork watershed (
Table 2 identifies the ownership of lands adjacent to the entirely aquatic Big Sandy crayfish proposed critical habitat.
For the Guyandotte River crayfish, we propose to designate approximately 135 skm (84 smi) in one unit, consisting of five subunits, in West Virginia as critical habitat. Approximately 67 skm (41 smi) in two subunits are considered occupied by the species at the time of listing and represent all known extant populations (see table 3, below). However, we determined that these two subunits do not provide sufficient resiliency, representation, or
Table 4 identifies the ownership of lands adjacent to the entirely aquatic Guyandotte River crayfish proposed critical habitat.
Below, we present brief descriptions of all units/subunits and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
This unit includes approximately 29.2 stream kilometers (skm) (18.1 stream miles (smi)) of Dismal Creek in the Upper Levisa Fork watershed. The threats within this unit that may need special management consideration include resource extraction (coal mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development); road construction and maintenance (including unpaved roads and trails); instream dredging or construction projects; and other sources of non-point source pollution. The upper limit of this unit is the confluence of Dismal Creek and Laurel Fork, and the downstream limit is the confluence of Dismal Creek and Levisa Fork. Recent surveys of Dismal Creek indicated an abundance of unembedded slab boulders and boulder clusters, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected in relatively high numbers from several locations within this unit (Thoma 2009b, p. 10; Loughman 2015a, p. 26). The Dismal Creek watershed is mostly forested; however, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) provide evidence of legacy and ongoing surface coal mining throughout the watershed. The narrow stream valley contains scattered residences and small communities, commercial facilities, occasional gas wells, and transportation infrastructure (
Unit 2 consists of the 10 subunits described below. The threats within this entire unit that may need special management consideration include resource extraction (coal mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development); road construction and maintenance (including unpaved roads and trails); instream dredging or construction projects; and other sources of non-point source pollution.
Subunit 2a includes approximately 83.8 skm (52.1 smi) of the Russell Fork mainstem from the confluence of Russell Fork and Ball Creek at Council, Virginia, downstream to the confluence of Russell Fork and Levisa Fork at Levisa Junction, Kentucky. Recent surveys of the Russell Fork indicated an abundance of unembedded slab boulders, boulder clusters, isolated boulders, and large cobbles, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been captured at numerous locations within this subunit (Thoma 2009b, p. 10; Loughman 2015a, p. 23). The Russell Fork watershed is mostly forested; however, USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) provide evidence of legacy and ongoing coal mining throughout the watershed. In the upper portion of the watershed, the narrow stream valley contains scattered residences and roads, but human development increases farther downstream in the form of small communities and towns, commercial facilities, and transportation infrastructure (
Subunit 2b includes approximately 5.9 skm (3.7 smi) of Hurricane Creek, a tributary to Russell Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Hurricane Creek and Gilbert Branch downstream to the confluence of Hurricane Creek and Russell Fork at Davenport, Virginia. Recent surveys of Hurricane Creek indicate an abundance of unembedded slab boulders, boulders, and cobbles, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected from two locations in lower Hurricane Creek (ATS 2009, entire; VDOT 2014, entire). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Hurricane Creek watershed is relatively intact forest, with the exception of ongoing oil or gas development on the ridges to the north and south of the creek and scattered residences, small agricultural fields, and roads in the narrow valley. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
This subunit includes approximately 7.4 skm (4.6 smi) of Indian Creek, a tributary to Russell Fork. Subunit 2c extends from the confluence of Indian Creek and Three Forks upstream of Duty, Virginia, to the confluence of Indian Creek and Russell Fork below Davenport, Virginia. Recent surveys of Indian Creek indicate an abundance of slab boulders and boulders with low to moderate embeddedness, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected from several locations (ATS 2009, entire; ATS 2010, entire; Loughman 2015a, pp. 24-25). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the lower portion of the Indian Creek watershed is mostly forested, with the exception of oil or gas development on a ridgeline to the west of the creek. The upper portion of the watershed is dominated by a large surface coal mine. The narrow creek valley contains scattered residences, small agricultural fields, and roads. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 2d includes approximately 4.6 skm (2.9 smi) of Fryingpan Creek, a tributary to Russell Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Fryingpan Creek and Priest Fork downstream to the confluence of Fryingpan Creek and Russell Fork. Recent surveys of Fryingpan Creek indicate an abundance of isolated slab boulders and boulder clusters with low embeddedness, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected from the lower reach of Fryingpan Creek (Loughman 2015a, pp. 24-25). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the watershed is mostly intact forest, with the exception of oil or gas development on some adjacent ridgelines and legacy coal mining in the upper portion of the watershed. The narrow creek valley contains scattered residences, small agricultural fields, and roads. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 2e includes approximately 16.2 skm (10.1 smi) of Lick Creek, a tributary of Russell Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Lick Creek and Cabin Fork near Aily, Virginia, downstream to the confluence of Lick Creek and Russell Fork at Birchfield, Virginia. Recent surveys of Lick Creek indicate an abundance of unembedded slab boulders and cobbles, with live Big Sandy crayfish collected at several locations (ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, entire). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the watershed is mostly forested, with the exception of oil or gas development on some adjacent ridgelines and legacy coal mining and timber harvesting sites at various locations within the watershed. The narrow creek valley contains scattered residences, small agricultural fields, and roads. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
This subunit includes approximately 8.4 skm (5.2 smi) of Russell Prater Creek, a tributary to Russell Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Russell Prater Creek and Greenbrier Creek downstream to the confluence of Russell Prater Creek and Russell Fork at Haysi, Virginia. Recent surveys of Russell Prater Creek indicate abundant unembedded slab boulders, boulders, and cobbles, with live Big Sandy crayfish collected from two sites in the lower portion of the creek (Thoma 2009b, p. 10; Loughman 2015a, pp. 22-23). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Russell Prater watershed is mostly forested; however, legacy coal mines and valley fills occur throughout the watershed. The narrow creek valley contains scattered residences, commercial facilities, small agricultural fields, and roads. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 2g includes approximately 35.6 skm (22.1 smi) of the McClure River and Creek, a major tributary to Russell Fork, and its tributary stream Open Fork (4.9 skm (3.0 smi)). The McClure River and Creek section extends from the confluence of McClure Creek and Wakenva Branch downstream to the confluence of McClure River and Russell Fork. Recent surveys of the McClure River indicated an often sandy bottom with unembedded, isolated slab boulders and boulder clusters, with live Big Sandy crayfish collected at several locations (Thoma 2009b, p. 18; Loughman 2015a, p. 22). The McClure River valley contains scattered residences, small communities, commercial mining-related facilities, small agricultural fields, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure. The riparian zone along much of the river appears to be relatively intact.
The Open Fork section of Subunit 2g extends from the confluence of Middle Fork Open Fork and Coon Branch downstream to the confluence of Open Fork and McClure Creek at Nora, Virginia. Recent surveys of Open Fork indicated unembedded, isolated slab
The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the McClure River watershed is mostly forested; however, legacy and active coal mining occurs in the middle and upper portions of the watershed. Natural gas development is also apparent on many of the adjacent ridges, and recent or ongoing logging operations continue at several locations in the watershed. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 2h includes approximately 8.5 skm (5.3 smi) of Elkhorn Creek, a tributary to Russell Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Elkhorn Creek and Mountain Branch downstream to the confluence of Elkhorn Creek and Russell Fork at Elkhorn City, Kentucky. Recent surveys indicated unembedded slab boulders and boulders in Elkhorn Creek with “extensive bedrock glides” in the lower reaches of the creek. Live Big Sandy crayfish were collected from under slab boulders in lower Elkhorn Creek (Loughman 2015a, pp. 18-19). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the watershed is mostly forested; however, significant legacy and active coal mining and other mining and quarrying occurs in the watershed. Human development, in the form of small communities, residences, small agricultural fields, and commercial and industrial facilities, as well as roads, railroads, and other infrastructure, occurs almost continually in the riparian zone along Elkhorn Creek. The watershed to the south of Elkhorn Creek is a unit of the Jefferson National Forest; however, Subunit 2h is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
This subunit includes approximately 24.6 skm (15.3 smi) of Cranes Nest River, a major tributary to Russell Fork, and approximately 6.9 skm (4.3 smi) of Birchfield Creek, a tributary to Cranes Nest River. The Cranes Nest River section of Subunit 2i extends from the confluence of Cranes Nest River and Birchfield Creek downstream to the confluence of Cranes Nest River and Lick Branch. Recent surveys of the Cranes Nest River indicated abundant unembedded slab boulders, boulder clusters, isolated boulders, and coarse woody debris, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected at multiple sites (Thoma 2009b, p. 10; VDOT 2014b, entire; VDOT 2015, entire; Loughman 2015a, pp. 21-22). The riparian zone of this section is largely intact; however, human development, in the form of residences, small communities, small agricultural fields, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure, occurs along some segments of Cranes Nest River.
The Birchfield Creek section of this subunit extends from the confluence of Birchfield Creek and Dotson Creek downstream to the confluence of Birchfield Creek and Cranes Nest River. Recent surveys resulted in observations of live Big Sandy crayfish from a site in the lower portion of Birchfield Creek. Human development, in the form of residences, roads, and other infrastructure, occurs in the riparian zone along Birchfield Creek.
The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Cranes Nest River watershed is mostly forested; however, significant legacy and active coal mining is evident throughout the watershed. Natural gas development is ongoing on some of the ridges adjacent to the Cranes Nest River. Approximately 10.3 skm (6.4 smi) of Subunit 2i is within the John W. Flannagan Recreation Area. The remainder of the subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. Since 1964, this subunit has been physically isolated from the Russell Fork by the John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir. The Big Sandy crayfish population in Subunit 2i appears to be relatively robust and contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 2j includes approximately 28.5 skm (17.7 smi) of the Pound River, a major tributary to Russell Fork that has been physically isolated from that river since 1964 by the John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir. This subunit extends from the confluence of Pound River and Bad Creek downstream to the confluence of Pound River and Jerry Branch. Recent surveys indicate abundant unembedded slab boulders, boulders, and boulder clusters in the riffle and run sections, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected from multiple locations (Thoma 2009b, entire; VHB, Inc. 2011, entire; Loughman 2015a, p. 21). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Pound River watershed is mostly forested; however, significant legacy and recent coal mining is evident, especially to the south of the river. Aerial imagery also indicates recent or ongoing logging operations at several locations in the watershed. Much of the immediate riparian zone is intact forest, with occasional human development in the form of small communities, residences, small agricultural fields, commercial development, and roads and other infrastructure adjacent to the river. Approximately 11.4 skm (7.1 smi) of Subunit 2j is within the John W. Flannagan Recreation Area. The remainder of the subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. The Big Sandy crayfish population in Subunit 2j appears to be relatively robust and contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Unit 3 consists of the two subunits described below. The threats within this entire unit that may need special management consideration include resource extraction (coal mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development); road construction and maintenance (including unpaved roads and trails); instream dredging or construction projects; and other sources of non-point source pollution.
Subunit 3a includes approximately 33.4 skm (20.8 smi) of the mainstem Levisa Fork in two disjunct segments. The upstream segment includes approximately 15.9 skm (9.9 smi) of the Levisa Fork from its confluence with the Russell Fork at Levisa Junction, Kentucky, downstream to the confluence of Levisa Fork and Island Creek at Pikeville, Kentucky. Surveys indicate that suitable unembedded boulder habitat is present in the Levisa Fork, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been recently collected both upstream of Subunit 3a in the Russell Fork and at one location near Pikeville, Kentucky (Thoma 2010, pp. 5-6; Loughman 2015a, pp. 5-10).
The downstream segment of Subunit 3a includes approximately 17.5 skm (10.9 smi) of the Levisa Fork near Auxier, Kentucky, from the confluence of Levisa Fork and Abbott Creek downstream to the confluence of Levisa Fork and Miller Creek. Recent surveys indicate isolated boulder clusters in this segment, with live Big Sandy crayfish collected from two locations (Thoma 2009b, entire; Loughman 2014, pp. 12-13).
The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 3a watershed is mostly forested; however, legacy and ongoing coal mining is evident in several locations. Human development, in the form of towns, small communities, residences, small agricultural fields, commercial and industrial development, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure, occurs nearly continuously in the riparian zone of these segments of the Levisa Fork. Subunit 3a is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. The upper segment of the subunit provides connectivity between the Russell Fork and Shelby Creek populations (discussed below), and the lower segment supports the most downstream population of Big Sandy crayfish in the Levisa Fork basin. Because the natural habitat characteristics (
This subunit includes approximately 32.2 skm (20.0 smi) of Shelby Creek, a tributary to Levisa Fork, and approximately 12.9 skm (8.0 smi) of Long Fork, a tributary to Shelby Creek. The Shelby Creek portion of this subunit extends from the confluence of Shelby Creek and Burk Branch downstream to the confluence of Shelby Creek and Levisa Fork at Shelbiana, Kentucky. The Long Fork portion of Subunit 3b extends from the confluence of Right Fork Long Fork and Left Fork Long Fork downstream to the confluence of Long Fork and Shelby Creek at Virgie, Kentucky. Recent surveys of this subunit indicated an abundance of unembedded slab boulders, boulder clusters, and anthropogenic structures such as concrete slabs and blocks in Shelby Creek and Long Fork, and live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected at multiple locations within this subunit (Thoma 2010, pp. 5-6; Loughman 2015a, p. 18). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Shelby Creek watershed is mostly forested; however, several large surface coal mines are evident west of the creek. The Long Fork watershed is also mostly forested; however, legacy and active coal mining is evident in the upper portion of this watershed. Human development, in the form of towns, small communities, residences, small agricultural fields, commercial and industrial development, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure, occurs nearly continuously in the riparian zone of Shelby Creek. In the riparian zone of Long Fork, residences, small agricultural fields, roads, and other infrastructure occur nearly continuously. Subunit 3b is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit maintains the most robust population of Big Sandy crayfish in the lower Levisa Fork (as indicated by recent survey capture rates) and increases the representation and redundancy of the species.
Unit 4 consists of the seven subunits described below. The threats within this entire unit that may need special management consideration include resource extraction (coal mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development); road construction and maintenance (including unpaved roads and trails); instream dredging or construction projects; and other sources of non-point source pollution.
Subunit 4a includes approximately 117.8 skm (73.2 smi) of the Tug Fork mainstem in two disjunct segments. The upstream segment includes approximately 106.1 skm (65.9 smi) of the Tug Fork from the confluence of Tug Fork and Elkhorn Creek at Welch, West Virginia, downstream to the confluence of Tug Fork and Blackberry Creek in Pike County, Kentucky. Surveys indicate that suitable unembedded boulder habitat is sparse and discontinuous in this segment of the Tug Fork; however, live Big Sandy crayfish have been collected at four locations within this subunit (Loughman 2015a, p. 16). The downstream segment includes approximately 11.7 skm (7.3 smi) of the Tug Fork near Crum, West Virginia, from the confluence of Tug Fork and Bull Creek downstream to the confluence of Tug Fork and Little Elk Creek.
The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 4a watershed is mostly forested; however, there is evidence of legacy and ongoing coal mining throughout the subunit. The riparian zone in the upper segment of Subunit 4a is relatively intact, with human development consisting primarily of road and railroad corridors. In the lower segment of the subunit, towns, small communities, residences, small agricultural fields, commercial and industrial development, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure become prevalent. Subunit 4a is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. Because of the diversity of natural habitat characteristics (
This subunit includes approximately 45.2 skm (28.1 smi) of Dry Fork, a large tributary to the Tug Fork, and approximately 4.6 skm (2.9 smi) of Bradshaw Creek, a tributary to Dry Fork. The Dry Fork portion of Subunit 4b extends from the confluence of Dry Fork and Jacobs Fork downstream to the confluence of Dry Fork and Tug Fork at Iaeger, West Virginia. The Bradshaw Creek portion extends from the confluence of Bradshaw Creek and Hite Fork at Jolo, West Virginia, downstream to the confluence of Bradshaw Creek and Dry Fork at Bradshaw, West Virginia. Recent surveys indicate abundant unembedded slab boulders, boulders, boulder clusters, and large cobbles, with live Big Sandy crayfish collected at numerous locations within this subunit (Loughman 2013, pp. 7-8; Loughman 2014, pp. 10-11; Loughman 2015a, pp. 14-15). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 4b watershed is mostly forested; however, legacy coal mining is evident throughout, and natural gas development is apparent in the upper portions of the watershed. The riparian zone in the upper portion of Dry Fork is relatively intact, with human development consisting primarily of
This subunit includes approximately 10.7 skm (6.6 smi) of Panther Creek, a tributary to Tug Fork. Subunit 4c extends from the confluence of Panther Creek and George Branch downstream to the confluence of Panther Creek and Tug Fork at Panther, West Virginia. Big Sandy crayfish have been collected at one site in the lower portion of this subunit. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the majority of the Panther Creek watershed is intact forest with evidence of only limited legacy coal mining. The riparian zone of this narrow valley is largely intact, containing a road and occasional residences (mostly in the lower portion of the subunit). Approximately 6.1 skm (3.8 smi) of Subunit 4c is located within the Panther State Forest, and the remainder is located on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 4d includes approximately 16.6 skm (10.3 smi) of Knox Creek, a tributary to Tug Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Knox Creek and Cedar Branch downstream to the confluence of Knox Creek and Tug Fork in Pike County, Kentucky. Recent surveys indicated abundant unembedded slab boulders, boulders, and boulder clusters, with live Big Sandy crayfish collected at four sites in the Kentucky portion of the creek (Thoma 2010, p. 5; Loughman 2015a, p. 12). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Knox Creek watershed is mostly forested, with evidence of significant legacy, recent, and ongoing coal mining in the watershed. In the upper portion of this subunit, human development in the form of small communities, residences, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure is common. In the middle and lower sections, the riparian zone is relatively intact, except for scattered residences and a road and railroad line. Subunit 4d is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. This subunit contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 4e includes approximately 10.1 skm (6.3 smi) of Peter Creek, a tributary to Tug Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Left Fork Peter Creek and Right Fork Peter Creek at Phelps, Kentucky, downstream to the confluence of Peter Creek and Tug Fork at Freeburn, Kentucky. Recent surveys indicate moderate sedimentation issues in Peter Creek, but some unembedded bottom substrates continue to be present (Loughman 2015a, p. 12). Big Sandy crayfish have been collected at two sites in the lower portion of this subunit. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Peter Creek watershed is mostly forested, with evidence of significant legacy, recent, and ongoing coal mining throughout the watershed. The riparian zone in Subunit 4e is dominated by human development in the form of small communities, residences, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. Subunit 4e contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 4f includes approximately 9.1 skm (5.7 smi) of Blackberry Creek, a tributary to Tug Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Blackberry Creek and Bluespring Branch downstream to the confluence of Blackberry Creek and Tug Fork. Recent surveys indicate moderate sedimentation in Blackberry Creek, but some unembedded bottom substrates continue to be present (Loughman 2015a, p. 12). Big Sandy crayfish have been collected at two sites in the lower portion of this subunit. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Blackberry Creek watershed is mostly forested, with evidence of significant legacy, recent, and ongoing coal mining throughout the watershed. The narrow riparian zone in Subunit 4f is dominated by human development in the form of small communities, residences, roads, and other infrastructure. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. Subunit 4f contributes to the redundancy of the species.
Subunit 4g includes approximately 14.0 skm (8.7 smi) of Pigeon Creek, a tributary to Tug Fork, and approximately 11.1 skm (6.9 smi) of Laurel Fork, a tributary to Pigeon Creek. The Pigeon Creek portion of this subunit extends from the confluence of Pigeon Creek and Trace Fork downstream to the confluence of Pigeon Creek and Tug Fork. The Laurel Creek portion extends from the confluence of Laurel Fork and Lick Branch 0.6 skm (0.4 smi) downstream of the Laurel Lake dam to the confluence of Laurel Fork and Pigeon Creek at Lenore, West Virginia.
Recent surveys indicate the bottom substrates in Pigeon Creek consist of fine sediments, sand, and occasional boulders, with Big Sandy crayfish collected at a single site (Loughman 2015a, p. 11). Laurel Fork maintains a bottom substrate of sand, gravel, cobble, and occasional slab boulders, with Big Sandy crayfish collected at two sites (Loughman 2015a, pp. 10-11). The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Pigeon Creek watershed is mostly forested, with evidence of significant legacy, recent, and ongoing coal mining and valley fills in the upper portion of the watershed. The Pigeon Creek riparian zone is dominated by human development in the form of small communities, residences, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure. The majority of the Laurel Creek watershed is within the Laurel Creek State Wildlife Management Area and is mostly intact forest; however, the narrow riparian zone is dominated by human development in the form of residences, roads, and other infrastructure. Subunit 4g is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements. With the exception of the Big Sandy crayfish occurrence in the Tug Fork mainstem near Crum, West Virginia, Subunit 4g supports the most
We propose to designate a single critical habitat unit (Unit 1), consisting of five subunits, for the Guyandotte River crayfish. The threats within this entire unit that may need special management consideration include resource extraction (coal mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development); road construction and maintenance (including unpaved roads and trails); instream dredging or construction projects; and other sources of non-point source pollution. In addition, subunits 1a and 1e may need special management consideration from the threat of ORV use. The subunits are described below.
This subunit includes approximately 28.6 skm (17.8 smi) of Pinnacle Creek, a tributary to the Guyandotte River. Subunit 1a extends from the confluence of Pinnacle Creek and Beartown Fork downstream to the confluence of Pinnacle Creek and the Guyandotte River at Pineville, West Virginia. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Pinnacle Creek watershed is mostly forested; however, legacy, recent, and ongoing coal mining is evident in the watershed. The riparian zone in this subunit is mostly intact, with human development consisting of unimproved roads or trails. In the lower portion of the subunit, some commercial and coal-related facilities are adjacent to the creek. This subunit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements.
Recent surveys of Pinnacle Creek confirmed the presence of the Guyandotte River crayfish at five sites in the upper portion of the creek, with the bottom substrate being characterized as gravel, with unembedded cobbles, small boulders, and isolated slab boulders. Substrate embeddedness was reported to increase markedly in downstream reaches (Loughman 2015b, p. 11). As one of only two known Guyandotte River crayfish populations, this subunit provides critical representation and redundancy for the species.
Subunit 1b includes approximately 38.0 skm (23.6 smi) of Clear Fork and its primary tributary Laurel Fork. This subunit extends from the confluence of Laurel Creek and Acord Branch downstream to the confluence of Clear Fork and the Guyandotte River. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 1b watershed is mostly forested; however, coal mining activity occurs throughout the subunit. Human development is prevalent in the riparian zone in this subunit and consists of communities, residences, commercial facilities, agricultural fields, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure. Approximately 6.2 skm (3.9 smi) of Subunit 1b is within the R.D. Bailey Lake State Wildlife Management Area, and the remainder is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements.
Surveys confirmed the Guyandotte River crayfish at six sites within this subunit, with the stream bottom substrate generally characterized as sand with abundant unembedded slab boulders, boulders, or boulder clusters (Loughman 2015b, pp. 9-10). Of the two remaining Guyandotte River crayfish populations, Subunit 1b contains the most robust population and provides critical representation and redundancy for the species.
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish, we have evaluated whether any unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the species. Subunit 1c includes approximately 35.8 skm (22.2 smi) of the Guyandotte River from its confluence with Pinnacle Creek at Pineville, West Virginia, downstream to its confluence with Clear Fork. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 1c watershed is mostly forested; however, some legacy and ongoing coal mining is evident along with natural gas development on adjacent ridges. In the lower portion of the subunit, the riparian zone is largely intact, with the exception of road and railroad rights-of-way. In the middle and upper portions of this subunit, human development in the riparian zone increases and consists of communities, residences, commercial facilities, agricultural fields, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure. Approximately 15.0 skm (9.3 smi) of Subunit 1c is located within the R.D. Bailey Lake State Wildlife Management Area, and the remainder is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements.
Although it is considered unoccupied, this subunit contains at least two of the physical or biological features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish, and we are reasonably certain that it will contribute to the conservation of the species. This subunit maintains “optimal” Guyandotte River crayfish habitat, including abundant unembedded slab boulders, boulders, boulder clusters, and cobble (PBF 1) (Loughman 2015b, pp. 22-24). Along with providing potential habitat for the Guyandotte River crayfish and thereby increasing its redundancy, this subunit provides connectivity (PBF 6) between the extant Pinnacle Creek and Clear Fork populations and provides connectivity between these two populations and the proposed unoccupied critical habitat subunit at Indian Creek (Subunit 1d, described below).
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish, we have evaluated whether any unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the species. Subunit 1d includes approximately 4.2 skm (2.6 smi) of Indian Creek, a tributary to the Guyandotte River. This subunit extends from the confluence of Indian Creek and Brier Creek at Fanrock, West Virginia, downstream to the confluence of Indian Creek and the Guyandotte River. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 1d watershed is mostly intact forest, with evidence of legacy coal mining and natural gas drilling on the adjacent slopes. Residences, roads, and other infrastructure occur in the narrow riparian zone. Approximately 1.3 skm (0.8 smi) of Subunit 1d is located within the R.D. Bailey Lake State Wildlife Management Area, and the remainder is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements.
Although it is considered unoccupied, this subunit contains at least two of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Guyandotte
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish, we have evaluated whether any unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the species. Subunit 1e includes approximately 28.0 skm (17.4 smi) of Huff Creek, a tributary of the Guyandotte River. This subunit extends from the confluence of Huff Creek and Straight Fork downstream to the confluence of Huff Creek and the Guyandotte River at Huff, West Virginia. The USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 1e watershed is mostly intact forest, with evidence of legacy and ongoing coal mining and legacy natural gas drilling on the adjacent slopes. Human development, in the form of residences, roads, and other infrastructure, occurs in the narrow riparian zone throughout this subunit. Subunit 1e is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings or road easements.
Although it is considered unoccupied, this subunit contains at least one of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish, and we are reasonably certain that it will contribute to the conservation of the species. The best available survey data (Loughman 2015b, pp. 14-15) indicate this subunit maintains unembedded slab boulders and boulder clusters with only minimal sedimentation (PBF 1). Guyandotte River crayfish were last collected from this subunit in 1989. While the R.D. Bailey Dam, constructed in 1980, prevents connectivity between this subunit and the extant Guyandotte River crayfish populations upstream, successful reintroduction of the species to this subunit would contribute to the species' redundancy.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a revised definition of destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law), and, subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, excessive erosion and sedimentation from coal mining or abandoned mine lands, oil or natural gas development, timber harvests, unpaved forest roads, road construction, channel alteration, off-road vehicle use, and other land-disturbing activities in the watershed and floodplain. Sedimentation from these activities could lead to stream bottom embeddedness that eliminates or reduces the sheltering habitat necessary for the conservation of these crayfish species.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or geometry. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization, dredging, impoundment, road and bridge construction, pipeline construction, and destruction of riparian vegetation. These activities may cause changes in water flows or channel stability and lead to increased sedimentation and stream bottom embeddedness that eliminates or reduces the sheltering habitat necessary for the conservation of these crayfish species.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, the release of chemicals, fill, biological pollutants, or heated effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to individual crayfish.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.” There are no Department of Defense (DoD) lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration the economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical habitat. We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socioeconomic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2019, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, first we identified, in the IEM dated August 14, 2019 (Service 2019, entire), probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Watershed and stream restoration activities; (2) construction of recreation improvements and management of recreation activities; (3) energy extraction (coal, oil, and gas) and maintenance/management of facilities (
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (
The above conclusion is also accurate for the occupied Guyandotte River crayfish subunits (1a and 1b). For the unoccupied Guyandotte River crayfish subunits (1c, 1d, and 1e), we anticipate project modifications may result in the future from consultations on one planned surface mining project as well as one existing surface mining project. Examples of project modifications may include, but are not limited to, sediment monitoring, chemical testing, macroinvertebrate monitoring, installing box culverts at all stream crossings, collocating valley fills or constructing regarded backstacks, and maintaining a spill response plan (IEc 2019, p. 15). Informed by discussions with a mining company operating in Guyandotte River crayfish occupied habitat, the cost estimates associated with such project modifications are projected to be relatively minor, ranging from $30,000 to $60,000 in the year of implementation.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Big Sandy crayfish totals approximately 582 skm (362 smi), all of which is currently occupied by the species. The proposed critical habitat designation for the Guyandotte River crayfish totals approximately 135 skm (84 smi), of which approximately 49 percent is currently occupied by the species.
As stated in the DEA (IEc 2019, p. 1), critical habitat designation for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish would be unlikely to generate costs exceeding $100 million in a single year, and therefore would not be significant. The direct section 7 costs would most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification, as well as the project modifications discussed above, in unoccupied habitat for the Guyandotte River crayfish. All of the proposed critical habitat units/subunits for the Big Sandy crayfish and two subunits of critical habitat for the Guyandotte River crayfish are occupied year-round by these species. Within occupied habitat, regardless of whether critical habitat is designated, all projects with a Federal nexus are already subject to section 7 requirements. The administrative time required to address critical habitat in these consultations is minor. The results of consultation for adverse modification are not likely to differ from the results of consultation for jeopardy. Three subunits of critical habitat for the
Based on the rate of historical consultations in occupied units/subunits, these two species are likely to generate a total of approximately 285 consultations and technical assistances in a given year. The total additional administrative cost of addressing adverse modification in these new and existing consultations is not expected to exceed $860,000 to $920,000, depending on the range of cost estimates for unoccupied critical habitat (see below), in a given year. This value likely overestimates the cost because technical assistance consultations, which cost substantially less, cannot be separated from informal consultations in the consultation information provided to the economists. The cost of project modifications resulting from currently identified existing and future activities in unoccupied habitat for the Guyandotte River crayfish range from $30,000 to $60,000 in a given year.
Further, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations. Additionally, because the proposed critical habitat is located in stretches of river, rather than on land, impacts on property values resulting from the perception of additional regulation are unlikely. Project modifications in unoccupied habitat for the Guyandotte River crayfish have the potential to increase conservation in these areas, resulting in an incremental benefit. Data limitations preclude IEc's ability to monetize these benefits; however, these benefits are unlikely to exceed $100 million in a given year.
The proposed units with the highest potential costs resulting from the designation of critical habitat are Unit 2 for the Big Sandy crayfish and the unoccupied subunits of Unit 1 for the Guyandotte River crayfish. Proposed Unit 2 for the Big Sandy crayfish (Russell Fork, spanning both Kentucky and Virginia) contains the most stream miles with adjacent Federal land ownership and, therefore, a higher probability of intersecting with projects or activities with a Federal nexus that require consultation. Because proposed Unit 1 for the Guyandotte River crayfish (in West Virginia) includes unoccupied stream miles, requests for project modifications would be likely for existing and planned surface mines.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule and our required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any additional economic impact information we receive during the public comment period (see
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or areas that pose potential national-security concerns (
We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental impact on national security that would result from the designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes are not owned or managed by DoD or DHS, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not intending to exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on impacts on national security unless we receive new information on such impacts during the public comment period.
We have not considered any areas for exclusion from critical habitat. As explained above, there are no DoD or national security impacts, and as described below, there are no Tribal trust impacts associated with the proposed designation. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any information currently available or received during the public comment period regarding the economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of the proposed designation and will determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if adopted as proposed, the critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if adopted, the proposed critical habitat designation
This proposed rule is not an E.O. 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Coal mining, pipeline and utility crossings, and oil and gas exploration activities regularly occur within the range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes and their proposed critical habitat units/subunits (Service 2019, pp. 7-8). These are routine activities that the Service consults on with the Office of Surface Mining, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 7 of the Act. In our draft economic analysis (DEA), we do not find that the designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. As discussed in the DEA, the costs associated with consultations related to occupied critical habitat would be largely administrative in nature and the costs associated with the two mining projects in unoccupied critical habitat are estimated not to exceed $60,000 per year (IEc 2019, pp. 1, 14-15). The full cost of the entire proposed designation is not expected to exceed $920,000 per year, which does not reach the significant threshold of $100 million per year. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The waters we are proposing to designate as critical habitat are owned by the States of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. None of these government entities fits the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction.” Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes in a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We propose designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no tribal lands that were occupied by the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes at the time of listing that contain the features essential for conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes that are essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat for the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes on tribal lands.
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rulemaking are the staff members of the North Atlantic-Appalachian Regional Office, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, Southwestern Virginia Field Office, and the West Virginia Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(h)
Big Sandy Crayfish (
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Martin, Pike, Johnson, and Floyd Counties, Kentucky; Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia; and McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne Counties, West Virginia, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Big Sandy crayfish consist of the following components:
(i) Fast-flowing stream reaches with unembedded slab boulders, cobbles, or isolated boulder clusters within an unobstructed stream continuum (
(ii) Streams and rivers with natural variations in flow and seasonal flooding sufficient to effectively transport sediment and prevent substrate embeddedness.
(iii) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated temperatures and physical and chemical parameters (
(iv) An adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, and plant matter (
(v) Aquatic habitats protected from riparian and instream activities that degrade the physical and biological features described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this entry or cause physical (
(vi) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the physical and biological features described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this entry and that allow for the movement of crayfish in response to environmental, physiological, or behavioral drivers. The scale of the interconnected stream network should be sufficient to allow for gene flow within and among watersheds.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4)
(5)
(6) Unit 1: Upper Levisa Fork—Dismal Creek, Buchanan County, Virginia.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: Russell Fork—Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia, and Pike County, Kentucky.
(i) Subunit 2a: Russell Fork, Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia, and Pike County, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2a follows:
(ii) Subunit 2b: Hurricane Creek, Buchanan County, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2b follows:
(iii) Subunit 2c: Indian Creek, Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2c follows:
(iv) Subunit 2d: Fryingpan Creek, Dickenson County, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2d follows:
(v) Subunit 2e: Lick Creek, Dickenson County, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2e follows:
(vi) Subunit 2f: Russell Prater Creek, Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2f follows:
(vii) Subunit 2g: McClure River and Open Fork, Dickenson County, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2g follows:
(viii) Subunit 2h: Elkhorn Creek, Pike County, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2h follows:
(ix) Subunit 2i: Cranes Nest River and Birchfield Creek, Dickenson and Wise Counties, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2i follows:
(x) Subunit 2j: Pound River, Dickenson and Wise Counties, Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 2j follows:
(8)
(9) Unit 3: Lower Levisa Fork—Floyd, Johnson, and Pike Counties, Kentucky.
(i) Subunit 3a: Levisa Fork, Floyd, Johnson, and Pike Counties, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 3a follows:
(ii) Subunit 3b: Shelby Creek and Long Fork, Pike County, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 3b follows:
(10)
(11) Unit 4: Tug Fork—McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne Counties, West Virginia; Buchanan County, Virginia; and Pike and Martin Counties, Kentucky.
(i) Subunit 4a: Tug Fork, McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne Counties, West Virginia; Buchanan County, Virginia; and Pike and Martin Counties, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 4a follows:
(ii) Subunit 4b: Dry Fork and Bradshaw Creek, McDowell County, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 4b follows:
(iii) Subunit 4c: Panther Creek, McDowell County, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 4c follows:
(iv) Subunit 4d: Knox Creek, Buchanan County, Virginia, and Pike County, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 4d follows:
(v) Subunit 4e: Peter Creek, Pike County, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 4e follows:
(vi) Subunit 4f: Blackberry Creek, Pike County, Kentucky.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 4f follows:
(vii) Subunit 4g: Pigeon Creek and Laurel Fork, Mingo County, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 4g follows:
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Logan and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Guyandotte River crayfish consist of the following components:
(i) Fast-flowing stream reaches with unembedded slab boulders, cobbles, or isolated boulder clusters within an unobstructed stream continuum (
(ii) Streams and rivers with natural variations in flow and seasonal flooding sufficient to effectively transport sediment and prevent substrate embeddedness.
(iii) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated temperatures and physical and chemical parameters (
(iv) An adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, and plant matter (
(v) Aquatic habitats protected from riparian and instream activities that degrade the physical and biological features described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this entry or cause physical (
(vi) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the physical and biological features described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this entry and that allow for the movement of crayfish in response to environmental, physiological, or behavioral drivers. The scale of the interconnected stream network should be sufficient to allow for gene flow within and among watersheds.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4)
(5)
(6) Unit 1: Upper Guyandotte—Logan and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia.
(i) Subunit 1a: Pinnacle Creek, Wyoming County, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 1a follows:
(ii) Subunit 1b: Clear Fork and Laurel Fork, Wyoming County, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 1b follows:
(iii) Subunit 1c: Guyandotte River, Wyoming County, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 1c follows:
(iv) Subunit 1d: Indian Creek, Wyoming County, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 1d follows:
(v) Subunit 1e: Huff Creek, Wyoming and Logan Counties, West Virginia.
(A)
(B) Map of Subunit 1e follows:
(1) In order to modify the quantitative limitations applicable to imports of washers under HTS subheadings 8450.11.00 and 8450.20.00, by allocating the within-quota quantities for the third quota year on a quarterly basis, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTS is modified as set forth in the Annex to this proclamation.
(2) Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
(3) The modifications to the HTS made by this proclamation, including the Annex hereto, shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on February 7, 2020, and shall continue in effect as provided in the Annex to this proclamation, unless such actions are earlier expressly reduced, modified, or terminated. One year from the termination of the safeguard measure established in this proclamation, the U.S. note and tariff provisions established in the Annex to this proclamation shall be deleted from the HTS.