Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Housing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rulemaking action; notification of decision to import.
We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation of fresh avocado fruit from continental Ecuador into the continental United States. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment, we have determined that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of fresh avocado fruit from continental Ecuador.
The articles covered by this notification may be authorized for importation after May 26, 2022.
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352.
Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests.
Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of fruits and vegetables that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section.
On June 15, 2018, APHIS published in the
The proposed rule was based on a pest risk assessment (PRA) that found four quarantine pests to be candidates for pest risk management. The quarantine pests were the fruit flies
During the public comment period, we received information from a commenter that led us to add the avocado seed pest,
We received 10 comments by the end of the original comment period on August 14, 2018, and 4 additional comments by the end of the reopened comment period on May 17, 2021. The comments were from two State departments of agriculture, Ecuador's national plant protection organization (NPPO), two trade associations, and private individuals.
The issues raised by the commenters are addressed below.
One commenter requested that the required buffer zone around pest-free places of production for
While it is true that the cited study found that males flew an average of 67 meters in one night, the study also noted that this is likely an underestimate of the distance that male moths are capable of flying in a single night. Therefore, it should not be assumed based on the study that 469 meters is the maximum distance a male moth could fly in its life.
The commenter also asked that we replace the term “place of production” in the RMD with the term “production site” to better reflect the nature of the growing sites in Ecuador.
The International Plant Protection Convention glossary defines a place of production as any premises or collection of fields operated as a single production or farming unit, and a production site as a defined part of a place of production, that is managed as a separate unit for phytosanitary
The same commenter, along with another commenter, also asked us to replace the term “municipality” with the term “parroquia rural,” or “rural parish,” to reflect Ecuador's administrative divisions more accurately.
We understand the commenters' concerns and have replaced the term “municipality” with the term “rural parish” in the RMD.
Two commenters stated that there should be more pest control measures for Hass avocados.
Since
One commenter encouraged USDA to develop molecular diagnostics for the
In recent years, APHIS has invested significant resources in molecular diagnostic technology, which allows APHIS to identify almost any interception in commercial fruit commodities to the species level. However, if any
One commenter stated that cold treatment is not an effective pest mitigation measure because fruit fly larvae can survive in untreated shipments.
APHIS is not proposing to use cold treatment as a pest mitigation measure for avocado fruit from Ecuador. Rather, avocados from Ecuador will be imported under the systems approach outlined in the RMD.
The commenter also claimed that Ecuador does not have a point-of-origin protocol for fruit inspection.
The systems approach requires the NPPO of Ecuador to conduct inspections of sites of production, packinghouses, and samples of avocado following post-harvest processing. Details of what these inspections must entail are included in the RMD, and the inspection protocol will be expanded upon further in the operational workplan the NPPO will enter into with APHIS.
The same commenter expressed concern that internal feeders, including fruit flies, are difficult to detect during inspections at ports of entry.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspects commercial fruit at U.S. ports of entry from all over the world and has significant experience in detecting pests, including fruit fly larvae. Moreover, most avocado varieties are poor fruit fly hosts, and Hass avocados are considered non-hosts by APHIS. The systems approach detailed in the RMD includes multiple mitigation measures in addition to inspections, including pest-free sites of production, trapping for fruit flies, removal of fallen fruit, and insect-exclusionary packinghouses. APHIS is confident that the systems approach is sufficient to mitigate any remaining risk of fruit flies following the pathway of avocados from Ecuador.
The commenter also suggested that avocados should only be considered for importation into States that do not have climates conducive to the establishment of fruit flies.
APHIS is confident that the systems approach outlined in the RMD is sufficient to mitigate risk of introducing pests to climates conducive to the establishment of fruit flies. The commenter did not provide any evidence suggesting that the mitigation measures are not effective. Therefore, we are not taking the action requested by the commenter.
The same commenter requested access to trapping records to better assess the threat of fruit fly introduction, and access to quality control records from Ecuador to verify that traps are being baited and checked at appropriate intervals. The commenter also expressed a desire to participate in site visits.
APHIS is committed to a transparent process and an inclusive role for stakeholders in our risk analysis process. To that end, we are currently considering ways to facilitate further stakeholder involvement during the initial stages of the development of PRAs and RMDs. However, at this time, APHIS does not routinely provide trapping records to stakeholders, nor does it involve stakeholders in site visits. APHIS based its PRA on scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information from the Government of Ecuador. The methodology we used to assess the threat of pest introduction is summarized in the PRA.
The systems approach outlined in the RMD includes multiple quality control measures to ensure that trapping is carried out appropriately. The NPPO of Ecuador must visit and inspect the production sites monthly, and the personnel conducting the trapping and pest surveys must be hired, trained, and supervised by the NPPO. APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO in monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach. The commenter did not provide any evidence suggesting that the pest risk analysis is inaccurate or that trapping will not be carried out effectively.
Another commenter asked for more mitigation measures for Linda, Bola, and Tonashe avocado varieties, stating that there is insufficient research regarding these varieties as potential fruit fly hosts.
As noted earlier, APHIS expects that the mitigation measures in the systems approach will be sufficient to remove any fruit flies from the pathway of all varieties of avocado fruit from Ecuador. If APHIS finds that any avocados have fruit fly larvae, the places of production will be suspended pending investigation, and will remain suspended until the risk has been mitigated. APHIS will consider suspending varieties, places of production, and packinghouses, as well as modifying the systems approach, if there are fruit fly interceptions.
The same commenter also suggested that the PRA should address the potential risk of introducing strains of the pest,
Phytosanitary surveillance conducted by the NPPO of Ecuador has found no evidence of
Another commenter asked that, in lieu of the requirement that no fruit fly hosts be grown within 100 meters of the edge of the production site, growers should be able to control the fruit flies via methods such as the elimination of overripe fruit, burial of fallen fruits, and installation of bait stations.
This requirement prevents the attraction of fruit flies to hosts adjacent to the avocado crop, creating a barrier that helps protect the avocados from pests. APHIS considers it a crucial part of the systems approach. Therefore, we are not removing this requirement.
The commenter also appeared to state that the NPPO of Ecuador will not include details of the trapping program in the operational workplan they provide to APHIS because they will approve the production sites as pest free areas.
APHIS is unclear on the commenter's reasoning. The operational workplan will need to include details of the trapping program for the fruit flies before importations of avocados from Ecuador into the United States can proceed under a systems approach. This is the case whether the trapping occurs under the auspices of a program to maintain a pest-free area for the fruit flies in question or not.
Finally, a commenter expressed concern that imports of avocados from Ecuador would reduce imports from Michoacán, Mexico, thereby harming that country's economy.
As a signatory to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of fruits and vegetables will be based on scientific evidence related to phytosanitary measures and issues, and will not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. Prohibiting imports based on economic considerations such as those brought up by the commenter would not be in keeping with this agreement.
That being said, we do not anticipate that this action will have a meaningful impact on the amount of avocados that Mexico exports to the United States. Mexico exports approximately 500,000 metric tons of avocados to the United States a year, while Ecuador is anticipated to export approximately 1 percent of that amount. Even if Ecuador avocados were to displace some Mexican exports of avocados to the United States, the disparity between the amounts exported by each country strongly suggests that any impact on Mexico would be negligible.
Finally, we note that the proposed rule was issued prior to the October 15, 2018, effective date of a final rule
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of commercial consignments of fresh avocado fruit from continental Ecuador into the continental United States subject to the following phytosanitary measures, which will be listed in FAVIR, available at
Phytosanitary measures for all varieties of Ecuador avocados:
• The NPPO of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of the systems approach.
• Avocados must be grown in sites of production that are registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. The NPPO of Ecuador must visit and inspect registered sites of production monthly, starting at least 2 months before harvest and continuing until the end of the shipping season.
• The NPPO must register packinghouses that intend to export avocados to the United States, as well as inspect and monitor the operations of the packinghouses.
• If the NPPO of Ecuador finds that a site of production or packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no fruit from the production site or packinghouse will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.
• The NPPO of Ecuador must review and maintain all forms and documents related to export program activities in sites of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and, if requested, provide them to APHIS for review.
• Avocados must be grown in pest-free sites of production for the avocado seed pest,
• If the avocados are grown in a rural parish free of
• If the avocados are grown in a rural parish not completely free of
• If one or more
• The NPPO of Ecuador must keep records of
• Avocado fruit that has fallen from the trees must be removed from the production site at least once every 7 days, starting 2 months before harvest and continuing through the end of the harvest, and may not be included in field containers of fruit to be packed for export.
• Harvested avocados must be placed in field cartons or containers that are marked to show the official registration number of the production site. The site of production where the avocados were grown must remain identifiable when the fruit leaves the grove, at the packinghouse, and throughout the export process. The fruit must be moved to the packinghouse within 3 hours of harvest or must be protected from fruit fly infestation until moved.
• Avocados must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in an insect-exclusionary packinghouse registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. The fruit must be safeguarded by an insect-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in
• A sample of avocado fruit from each site of production must be inspected by the NPPO of Ecuador following any post-harvest processing.
• Fruit presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United States must be identified in the shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit to specify the production site or sites, in which the fruit was produced, and the packing shed or sheds, in which the fruit was processed.
• Each consignment of avocados must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by NPPO of Ecuador and providing an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment has been produced in compliance with the requirements of the systems approach.
Additional phytosanitary measures for varieties of Ecuador avocados other than Hass:
• No other host of
• The registered production sites must conduct trapping for
• The NPPO must keep records of fruit fly detections for each trap, update the records each time the traps are checked, and make the records available to APHIS upon request. The records must be maintained for at least 1 year.
• If
These conditions are described in further detail in the final RMD. In addition to these specific measures, fresh avocado fruit from continental Ecuador will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Interpretive rule.
Section 1042 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) generally authorizes States to enforce the CFPA's provisions. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is issuing this interpretive rule to provide further clarity regarding the scope of State enforcement under section 1042 and related provisions of the CFPA. Specifically, the Bureau is issuing the following interpretations: Section 1042 allows States to enforce any provision of the CFPA, including section 1036(a)(1)(A), a provision that makes it unlawful for covered persons or service providers to violate the Federal consumer financial laws; the limitations on the Bureau's authority in sections 1027 and 1029 generally do not constrain States' enforcement authority under section 1042; and section 1042 does not restrict States from bringing concurrent enforcement actions with the Bureau.
This interpretive rule is effective on May 26, 2022.
Shiva Nagaraj, Senior Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the Federal government's primary regulator of consumer financial products and services.
However, the Bureau is not the only enforcer of these laws. The CFPA recognizes the important role that States play in overseeing the consumer financial marketplace.
Generally, State attorneys general may “bring a civil action in the name of such State in any district court of the United States in that State or in State court that is located in that State and that has jurisdiction over the defendant, to enforce provisions of this title [
Section 1042, as one court has explained, allows States to vindicate their “fundamental right to protect their citizens and prevent harmful conduct from occurring in their jurisdictions” and gives them tools “to pick up slack when the [F]ederal Government fails to enforce and regulate.”
Since the CFPA was enacted, many States have relied on section 1042 to bring civil enforcement actions, on their own or in joint or coordinated filings with the Bureau, to enforce a provision of the CFPA that prohibits unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices in connection with the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.
CFPA section 1042 authorizes State attorneys general and State regulators to bring an enforcement action to pursue violations of section 1036(a)(1)(A), which makes it unlawful for a covered person or service provider to violate any Federal consumer financial law.
As noted above, section 1042(a) generally authorizes States to bring civil actions “to enforce provisions of [the CFPA].” One such provision of the CFPA, section 1036(a)(1)(B), states that it is unlawful for any “covered person” or “service provider” to “engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice.”
Additionally, another provision of the CFPA, section 1036(a)(1)(A), declares it unlawful for any “covered person” or “service provider” to “offer or provide to a consumer any financial product or service not in conformity with Federal consumer financial law, or otherwise commit any act or omission in violation of a Federal consumer financial law.”
As explained above, the “Federal consumer financial laws” are the CFPA, the enumerated consumer laws, the laws for which authorities are transferred under subtitles F and H of the CFPA, and any rule or order prescribed by the Bureau under the CFPA, an enumerated consumer law, or pursuant to the authorities transferred under subtitles F and H. The enumerated consumer laws are the 18 laws referred to in section 1002(12) of the CFPA. Rules prescribed by the Bureau include, for example, the rules implementing the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X),
States' authority to pursue violations of the CFPA is, of course, supplemental to the authority States may already have to enforce the Federal consumer financial laws. Several enumerated consumer laws authorize States to bring actions to enforce the substantive provisions of those laws. Section 1042(a)(3) of the CFPA clarifies that it does not “modify[ ], limit[ ], or supersed[e] the operation of any [such] provision of an enumerated consumer law.”
The enforcement authority of States under section 1042 is generally not subject to certain limits applicable to the Bureau's enforcement authority.
Sections 1027 and 1029 of the CFPA set limits on the Bureau's enforcement authority. Under section 1027, the Bureau is subject to limits on its authority with respect to merchants, retailers, and other sellers of nonfinancial goods; real estate brokerage activities; retailers of manufactured or modular homes; accountants and tax preparers; attorneys engaged in the practice of law; persons regulated by a State insurance regulator; products or services that relate to specified employee benefit and compensation plans; persons regulated by a State securities commission; persons regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission; persons regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; persons regulated by the Farm Credit Administration; and activities related to charitable contributions.
With one exception discussed below, each of these limitations expressly applies to only the “Bureau” or the Bureau's “Director.” For example, under section 1027(e), “the Bureau may not exercise any supervisory or enforcement authority with respect to an activity engaged in by an attorney as part of the practice of law under the laws of a State in which the attorney is licensed to practice law,” except as specified.
Because Congress applied these limitations in sections 1027 and 1029 only to the Bureau, they do not extend to States exercising their enforcement authority under section 1042. Indeed, Congress used different language in the one exclusion that it intended to apply to States, the limitation on sellers of nonfinancial goods: “To the extent that the Bureau may not exercise authority under this subsection with respect to a merchant, retailer, or seller of nonfinancial goods or services, no action by a State attorney general or State regulator with respect to a claim made under this titlemay be brought under [section 1042], with respect to an activity described in any of clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (A) by such merchant, retailer, or seller of nonfinancial goods or services.”
State attorneys general and regulators may bring (or continue to pursue) actions under section 1042 even if the Bureau is pursuing a concurrent action against the same entity. As explained by the Third Circuit, “the clear statutory language of the Consumer [Financial] Protection Act permits concurrent [S]tate claims, for nothing in the statutory framework suggests otherwise.”
When Congress intended to preclude concurrent CFPA actions, it expressly did so. There are multiple places within the CFPA where Congress made clear that concurrent actions should not occur or that one agency should take primary enforcement role over other agencies. For example, with respect to nondepository covered persons, if the Bureau or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed an action asserting certain violations of the CFPA, the other agency is prohibited during the pendency of the action from instituting “a civil action under such provision of law against any defendant named in the complaint in such pending action for any violation alleged in the complaint.”
This is an interpretive rule issued under the Bureau's authority to interpret the CFPA, including under section 1022(b)(1) of the CFPA, which authorizes guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial laws, such as the CFPA.
As an interpretive rule, this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N; A320 series; and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 30, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 30, 2022.
For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0140, dated June 14, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0140) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, A319-153N, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N, A320-272N, A320-273N, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-251NX, A321-252N, A321-252NX, A321-253N, A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-271NX, A321-272N, and A321-272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N; A320 series; and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and American Airlines. The ALPA supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.
American Airlines (AAL) requested a change in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to correct an incorrect task reference. AAL stated that incorporating Task 531135-03-1 actually terminates Task 531135-01-2, as determined by Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2, Variation 8.5, not Task 531135-03-2, as indicated in the proposed AD.
The FAA agrees with the request and has revised paragraph (j) of this AD to indicate the correct task number.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
EASA AD 2021-0140 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,728 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
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 will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 30, 2022.
This AD affects AD 2020-20-05, Amendment 39-21261 (85 FR 65197, October 15, 2020) (AD 2020-20-05).
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 10, 2020.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0140, dated June 14, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0140).
(1) Where EASA AD 2021-0140 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The provisions specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2021-0140 do not apply to this AD.
(3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0140 specifies revising “the approved [aircraft maintenance program] AMP” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0140 is at the applicable “thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0140, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(5) The provisions specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0140 do not apply to this AD.
(6) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2021-0140 does not apply to this AD.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD, including incorporating Task 531135-03-1 as required by EASA AD 2021-0140 and incorporated by reference in this AD, terminates Task 531135-01-2, as required by EASA AD 2020-0036R1 and incorporated by reference in AD 2020-20-05, and as required by paragraph (i) of AD 2020-20-05.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0140, dated June 14, 2021.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA AD 2021-0140, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is May 26, 2022. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 26, 2022.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 26, 2022. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 26, 2022.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
* * * EFFECTIVE UPON PUBLICATION
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
BIS is finalizing changes to License Exception ACE and corresponding changes in the definition section of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in response to public comments to an October 21, 2021 interim rule. That rule established a new control on certain cybersecurity items for National Security (NS) and Anti-terrorism (AT) reasons, as well as adding a new License Exception Authorized Cybersecurity Exports (ACE) that authorizes exports of these items to most destinations except in certain circumstances. These items warrant controls because these tools could be used for surveillance, espionage, or other actions that disrupt, deny or degrade the network or devices on it. This rule also corrects Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 5D001 in the Commerce Control List.
This rule is effective May 26, 2022.
For questions regarding the Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in this rule or License Exception ACE, contact Aaron Amundson at 202-482-0707 or email
In 2013, the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) decided on new controls on cybersecurity items. The controls included hardware and software controls on the command and delivery platforms for “intrusion software”, the technology for the “development”, “production” or “use” of the command and delivery platforms, and the
In response to the proposed rule, BIS received almost 300 comments that raised substantial concerns about the proposed rule's scope and the effect the proposed rule would have on legitimate cybersecurity research and incident response activities. BIS also conducted extensive outreach with the security industry, financial institutions, and government agencies that manage cybersecurity.
Comments on the previously published proposed rule focused on three main issues. First, many commenters asserted that the entries were overly broad, captured more than was intended, and, as a technical matter, failed to accurately describe the items intended for control. Second, many commenters asserted that the rule as written imposed a heavy and unnecessary licensing burden on legitimate transactions that contribute to cybersecurity. Third, many commenters suggested that the proposed rule's control on technology for the “development” of “intrusion software” could cripple legitimate cybersecurity research.
Based on these comments, the United States decided against amending the proposed rule and instead returned to the WA in 2016 and 2017 to negotiate changes to the text. In December 2017, the WA published the changes that resulted from those negotiations. There were three significant changes: First, using “command and control” in the control language for both hardware and software addressed concerns from cybersecurity companies to more specifically control tools that can be used maliciously; second, adding a note to the control entry for technology for the “development” of “intrusion software” that excludes from the entry “technology” that is exchanged for “vulnerability disclosure” or “cyber incident response”; and third, adding a note to the “software” generation, command and control, or delivery entry that excludes from this entry products designed and limited to providing basic software updates and upgrades.
On October 21, 2021 (86 FR 58205), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an interim final rule (October 21 rule) that establishes new controls on certain cybersecurity items for National Security (NS) and Anti-terrorism (AT) reasons, along with a new License Exception, Authorized Cybersecurity Exports (ACE), that authorizes exports of these items to most destinations except in specified circumstances. That rule was published with a 45-day comment period, which ended on December 12, 2021, and a 90-day delayed effective date (January 19, 2022). A total of 12 comments were received. On January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1670), BIS published a rule that further delayed the effective date of the interim final rule by 45 days (March 7, 2022). That action did not extend or reopen the comment period for BIS's previous request for comments on the interim final rule. Consistent with the comments received, this action amends the October 21 rule that became effective March 7, 2022.
Several commenters stated that the new 5A001.j entry is complex and therefore presents compliance difficulties. One commenter asked whether 5A001.j would control cybersecurity incident detection and monitoring software. Another commenter stated that 5A001.j systems have numerous components, all of which will need to be examined under the new entry. In response, BIS is providing additional information and guidance through “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) on 5A001.j to clarify these interpretation issues. BIS does not expect 5A001.j to control a large number of products, and therefore believes these issues can be addressed in the FAQs.
Several commenters recommended that BIS devote additional resources to conducting outreach to exporters about the interim final rule. One commenter recommended a decision tool for ACE like the one used for License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA), as well as more FAQs. Another said BIS should put more resources towards outreach to the cybersecurity community. One commenter recommended developing additional guidelines to help exporters with the interim final rule. BIS agrees with these comments and is working on providing additional guidance along these lines.
Several commenters asked for clarification of BIS's “reason to know” standard. One commenter said that the end-use based control uses the phrase “knows or has reason to know” and asked if this was supposed to be different from the “knowledge” standard. Others recommended BIS provide guidelines on when an exporter would have “reason to know” something will be used for unauthorized surveillance. The terms “know” and “reason to know” use the same definition found in § 772.1 of the EAR as the term “knowledge,” which is the one that should be used for this rule. BIS has published extensive “Know Your Customer” guidance in supplement no. 3 to part 732 of the EAR and on its website. That information also applies to transactions under license exception ACE. BIS believes the current guidance is sufficient to address the questions raised by the commenters and declines to provide additional sector-specific guidance for this area beyond what is published on the website.
Several commenters stated that the definition of `government end user' in ACE is vague and will be difficult to apply. Two commenters stated that there is some potential overlap between `government end users' and `favorable treatment cybersecurity end users'. BIS agrees with this recommendation and makes changes to the definition of `government end user' to be more specific and to clarify the meaning of this term.
One commenter stated that the licensing requirement for people acting on behalf of a `government end user' will chill cross-border collaboration with cybersecurity researchers and bug bounty hunters because exporters will be required to check whether an individual has a government affiliation before communicating with them. The company recommends BIS either remove this requirement or modify it. BIS disagrees with this recommendation. The license requirement for people acting on behalf of a government is necessary to prevent people who are acting on behalf of a Country Group D government from obtaining `cybersecurity items' for activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Removing this requirement would risk allowing Country Group D governments access to those items. BIS agrees that this means that exporters will in some cases have to check government affiliation of people and companies they work with. However, because of the limited scope and applicability of the license requirement, BIS believes the requirement will protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests without unduly impacting legitimate cybersecurity activities.
A couple of commenters stated that the definitions of “vulnerability disclosure” and “cyber incident response” are too narrow. One commenter said that researchers share vulnerability information unrelated to remediation of a specific vulnerability or incident. Another said the definitions should include information that is not strictly “necessary” for vulnerability disclosure or cyber incident response activities, as well as information that is needed to prevent cyber incidents from happening. One commenter recommended expanding the exclusion to include preventative remediation and coordination activities. They recommend two possible solutions: (1) Amend FAQs to clarify that the carve-out covers routine sharing of exploits for cybersecurity purposes; or (2) amend the definition of fundamental research to include transferring exploit information for research purposes. BIS believes that many of the activities commenters mentioned as being subject to a license requirement, such as tactics and techniques of malicious actors, and identifying products that contain vulnerabilities, are not subject to this control and that therefore the scope of items that would require a license in this area is significantly smaller than the commenters asserted. Therefore, BIS is not amending the rule but will clarify the scope of license requirements in this area via guidance in FAQs.
One commenter suggested extending the comment period to January 5, 2022. Another recommended delaying the effective date of the rule and conducting more extensive industry consultations and engagements. In response, BIS delayed the implementation date of the October 21 rule to March 7, 2022, and reached out to interested industry members of BIS's Technical Advisory Committees to prepare additional guidance and make clarifications that are in this final rule.
Several commenters said the rule is complicated and will be difficult for people to understand and implement. In response, BIS has made several changes in this final rule to clarify the scope of controls. In addition, BIS delayed the implementation date of the October 21 rule to March 7, 2022, which allowed for the preparation of additional guidance to assist with compliance.
One commenter said that the estimated yearly expense of compliance of $2,520 is a gross underestimation, because the complexity of the rule will increase the cost of compliance. However, none of the commenters provided data to substantiate this claim or provided another estimate. BIS consulted with its Technical Advisory Committees to develop the estimate yearly expense identified in this rule.
BIS is revising § 740.17 by adding a new end-use restriction (§ 740.17(f)) equivalent to the end-use restriction in § 740.22(c)(4) of License Exception ACE, so that License Exception ENC is not authorized if the exporter, reexporter, or transferor “knows” or has “reason to know” at the time of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), including deemed exports and reexports, that the following items will be used to affect the confidentiality, integrity or availability of information or information systems, without authorization by the owner, operator or administrator of the information system (including the information and processes within such systems): “cryptanalytic items”, classified in ECCN 5A004.a, 5D002.a.3.a or c.3.a, or 5E002; network penetration tools described in § 740.17(b)(2)(i)(F), and ECCN 5E002 “technology” therefor; or automated network vulnerability analysis and response tools described in § 740.17(b)(3)(iii)(A), and ECCN 5E002 “technology” therefor. This conforming change is necessary to avoid an unintended circumstance in which the § 740.22(c)(4) License Exception ACE end-use restriction could be evaded by adding cryptographic or cryptanalytic functionality to the `cybersecurity item' and exporting, reexporting or transferring (in-country) the resulting `encryption item' subject to the EAR under License Exception ENC.
In response to public comments, BIS is revising § 740.22. BIS is revising the definition of the term `Government end user' as defined in § 740.22(b)(4) of License Exception ACE by adding a detailed illustrative list of end users that meet this definition. Included in the list are two types of government end users that are already defined in the EAR, “more-sensitive government end users” and “less-sensitive government end users”. BIS also added a note to define `partially operated or owned by a government or governmental authority' to guide the public in understanding this phrase, which is used in three of the listed `government end users' related to utilities; transportation hubs and services; and retail or wholesale firms engaged in the manufacture, distribution, or provision of items or services specified in the Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List.
BIS also revised the format of the restrictions in § 740.22(c) by collapsing the levels and moving most of the text that was in notes to subordinate paragraphs within paragraph (c). Several people commented that the double negative structure of the restrictions paragraph was confusing. BIS believes the more simplified paragraph organization will alleviate the confusion.
Finally, BIS is amending § 740.22(c)(2)(i) to correct the text, which inadvertently increased the scope of the exception. As currently written, that paragraph allows (a) exports of `digital artifacts' to anyone in a Country Group D country that is also listed in Country Group A:6; and (b) exports of any `cybersecurity item' to police or judicial bodies to Country Group D countries that are also listed in Country Group A:6. However, BIS intended to only allow exports of `digital artifacts' to police or judicial bodies in Country Group D countries that are also listed in Country Group A:6 for purposes of criminal or civil investigations or prosecutions. These changes correct the text to reflect the intended scope.
This rule amends the terms “Less sensitive government end users” and “More sensitive government end users” to indicate that the terms apply to cybersecurity items and are now referenced in License Exception ACE (§ 740.22).
This rule corrects an error made to ECCN 5D001in the October 21, 2021 interim rule. That rule inadvertently removed 5D001.e and this rule restores 5D001.e.
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. Sections 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.
This final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
For the existing ECCNs included in this rule (4D001, 4E001, 5A001, 5A004, 5D001, 5E001), the 2020 data from the Automated Export System (AES) shows 980 shipments valued at $39,146,164. Of those shipments, 120 shipments valued at $1,864,699 went to Country Group D:1 or D:5 countries, which would make them ineligible for License Exception ACE. There were no shipments to Country Group E:1 or E:2. Under the provisions of this rule, the 120 shipments require a license application submission to BIS.
As there is no specific ECCN data in AES for the new export controls in new ECCNs 4A005 and 4D004 or new paragraph 4E001.c, BIS has used other data to estimate the number of shipments of these new ECCNs that will require a license. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data from 2019 show a total dollar value of $55,657,000 for Telecom, Computer, and Information Technology Services exports. Multiplying this value by 12.1% (the percentage of all exports that are subject to an EAR license requirement as determined by using AES data) suggests that $6,734,497,000 of Telecom/Computer/IT exports are now subject to EAR license requirements. Based on AES data on the existing ECCNs affected by this rule, BIS estimates the average value of each shipment for the new ECCNs at about $40,000, and further estimates that 0.6% of all new ECCN shipments (1,010 shipments) are now eligible for License Exception ACE and 0.03% of all new ECCN shipments (50 shipments) require a license application submission.
Therefore, the annual total estimated cost associated with the paperwork burden imposed by this rule (that is, the projected increase of license application submissions based on the additional shipments requiring a license) is estimated to be 170 new applications × 29.6 minutes = 5,032/60 min = 84 hours × $30 = $2,520.
BIS is in the process of updating this information collection to account for the increase in burden hours and costs posed by this rule. Comments on the methodology associated with calculating the cost or burden increases or any other aspect of this collection can be submitted via
Pursuant to Section 4821 of ECRA, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public participation. Further, no other law requires notice of proposed rulemaking or opportunity for public comment for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 15 CFR parts 740, 772, and 774, which was published on October 21, 2021 (86 FR 58205), is adopted as final with the following changes:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
(f)
(1) “Cryptanalytic items,” classified in ECCN 5A004.a, 5D002.a.3.a or c.3.a, or 5E002;
(2) Network penetration tools described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(F) of this section, and ECCN 5E002 “technology” therefor; or
(3) Automated network vulnerability analysis and response tools described in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section, and ECCN 5E002 “technology” therefor.
See also § 740.22(c)(4).
(a)
(b)
(1) `
(2)
(3)
(i) A “U.S. subsidiary”;
(ii) Providers of banking and other financial services;
(iii) Insurance companies; or
(iv) Civil health and medical institutions providing medical treatment or otherwise conducting the practice of medicine, including medical research.
(4)
(i) International governmental organizations;
(ii) Government operated research institutions;
(iii) “More-sensitive government end users”;
(iv) “Less-sensitive government end users”;
(v) Utilities (including telecommunications service providers and internet service providers) that are wholly operated or owned by a government or governmental authority or `partially operated or owned by a government or governmental authority';
(vi) Transportation hubs and services (
(vii) Retail or wholesale firms that are wholly operated or owned by a government or governmental authority or `partially operated or owned by a government or by a governmental authority', engaged in the manufacture, distribution, or provision of items or services specified in the Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List.
(5) For the purposes of this section,
(c)
(1) To a destination that is listed in Country Group E:1 or E:2 in supplement no.1 to this part.
(2) To a `government end user', as defined in this section, of any country listed in Country Group D:1, D:2, D:3, D:4 or D:5 in supplement no. 1 to this part,
(i) `Digital artifacts' (that are related to a cybersecurity incident involving information systems owned or operated by a `favorable treatment cybersecurity end user') to police or judicial bodies in Country Group D countries that are also listed in Country Group A:6 for purposes of criminal or civil investigations or prosecutions of such cybersecurity incidents;
(ii) To national computer security incident response teams in Country Group D countries that are also listed in Country Group A:6 of `cybersecurity items' for purposes of responding to cybersecurity incidents, for purposes of “vulnerability disclosure”, or for purposes of criminal or civil investigations or prosecutions of such cybersecurity incidents.
(3) The restrictions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section also apply to activities, including exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country), related to “vulnerability disclosure” and “cyber incident response”.
For paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, see Note 1 to ECCN 4E001 in the CCL (supplement no. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) excluding “vulnerability disclosure” and “cyber incident response” from control under 4E001.a or .c.
(4) To a non-`government end user' located in any country listed in Country Group D:1 or D:5 of supplement no. 1 to this part,
(i) Cybersecurity items classified under ECCNs 4A005, 4D001.a (for 4A005 or 4D004), 4D004, 4E001.a (for 4A005, 4D001.a (for 4A005 or 4D004) or 4D004) and 4E001.c, to any `favorable treatment cybersecurity end user'.
(ii) “Vulnerability disclosure” or “cyber incident response”.
(iii) Deemed exports.
(5) If the exporter, reexporter, or transferor “knows” or has “reason to know” at the time of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), including deemed exports and reexports, that the `cybersecurity item' will be used to affect the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information or information systems, without authorization by the owner, operator, or administrator of the information system (including the information and processes within such systems).
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
(1) Local/state/provincial “government end users” (departments, agencies, and entities), including local/state/provincial executive, legislative, judicial, police, fire, rescue, and public safety agencies.
(2) National/federal/royal “government end users” (departments, agencies, and entities) providing the following civil government functions and services:
(i) Census and statistics services;
(ii) Civil public works infrastructure services (construction, maintenance, repair, regulation, and administration) as follows: Buildings, public transportation, roads and highways, trucking;
(iii) Civil service administration and regulation, including human resources and personnel/labor management;
(iv) Clean water infrastructure services (treatment, supply and testing);
(v) Economic (trade/commerce/investment), business and industrial development, promotion, regulation and
(A) Agencies, departments, boards, and councils for science and technology;
(B) Research, development, and national laboratories (other than as specified in paragraphs (2)(xi) (measurements and standards services) and (2)(xii) (meteorology/weather/atmospheric services) of this definition); and
(C) National telecommunications and information technology agencies, boards, councils, and development authorities (including national information center, and Information Communications Technology (ICT)/telecommunications infrastructure/spectrum planning, policy, regulation, and testing);
(vi) Elections, balloting, and polling services;
(vii) Energy regulation and administration, including oil, gas, and mining sectors;
(viii) Environmental/natural resources regulation, administration, and protection, including wildlife, fisheries, and national parks;
(ix) Food/agriculture regulation and administration;
(x) Labor/community/social services planning, regulation, and administration, including: Housing and urban development, municipality and rural affairs;
(xi) Measurements and standards services;
(xii) Meteorology (weather, atmospheric) services;
(xiii) National archives/museums;
(xiv) Patents;
(xv) Pilgrimage and religious affairs;
(xvi) Postal services;
(xvii) Public and higher education (excluding government research institutions and any agency, institution, or affiliate engaged in the manufacture or distribution of items or services controlled on the Wassenaar Munitions List);
(xviii) Public health and medicine/pharmaceutical regulation and administration;
(xix) Public libraries;
(xx) Sports/culture (includes film, commercial broadcasting, and the arts) promotion, regulation, and administration; and
(xxi) Travel/tourism promotion, regulation, and administration.
(1) Agencies, departments, boards, and councils for science and technology (including research, development, and state/national laboratories, but not including measurements and standards);
(2) Currency and monetary authorities (including departments and offices of the national/federal/royal reserve);
(3) Executive agents of state (including offices of president/vice president/prime minister, royal courts, national security councils, cabinet/council of ministers/supreme councils/executive councils, crown princes and other deputies of the rulers, departments and offices of political/constitutional/mainland affairs);
(4) Legislative bodies responsible for the enactment of laws;
(5) Import/export control, customs and immigration agencies, and entities;
(6) Intelligence agencies and entities;
(7) Judiciary (including supreme courts and other national/federal/regional/royal high courts and tribunals);
(8) Maritime, port, railway, and airport authorities;
(9) Military and armed services (including national guard, coast guard, security bureaus, and paramilitary);
(10) Ministries, departments, and garrisons of defense (including defense technology agencies);
(11) Ministries and departments of finance and taxation (including national/federal/royal budget and revenue authorities);
(12) Ministries and departments of foreign affairs/foreign relations/consulates/embassies;
(13) Ministries of interior, internal/home/mainland affairs, and homeland security;
(14) State/national telecommunications and information technology agencies, boards, councils, and development authorities (including national information/critical infrastructure data centers, and Information and Communications Technology (ICT)/telecommunications infrastructure/spectrum planning, policy, regulation, and testing);
(15) Police, investigation and other law enforcement agencies, and entities (including digital crime/cybercrime/computer forensics, counter narcotics/counter terrorism/counter proliferation agencies);
(16) Prisons; and
(17) Public safety agencies and entities (including national/federal/royal agencies and departments of civil defense, emergency management, and first responders).
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
See § 743.1 of the EAR for reporting requirements for exports under License Exceptions, and Validated End-User authorizations.
(See Part 740 for a description of all license exceptions).
a. “Software” “specially designed” or modified for the “development”, “production” or “use” of equipment, functions or features controlled by 5A001;
b. [Reserved]
c. Specific “software” “specially designed” or modified to provide characteristics, functions or features of equipment, controlled by 5A001 or 5B001;
d. “Software” “specially designed” or modified for the “development” of any of the following telecommunication transmission or switching equipment:
d.1. [Reserved]
d.2. Equipment employing a “laser” and having any of the following:
d.2.a. A transmission wavelength exceeding 1,750 nm;
d.2.b. Employing analog techniques and having a bandwidth exceeding 2.5 GHz;
d.3. [Reserved]
d.4. Radio equipment employing Quadrature-Amplitude-Modulation (QAM) techniques above level 1,024.
e. “Software”, other than that specified by 5D001.a or 5D001.c, “specially designed” or modified for monitoring or analysis by law enforcement, providing all of the following:
e.1. Execution of searches on the basis of “hard selectors” of either the content of communication or metadata acquired from a communications service provider using a `handover interface';
1. For the purposes of 5D001.e, a `handover interface' is a physical and logical interface, designed for use by an authorised law enforcement authority, across which targeted interception measures are requested from a communications service provider and the results of interception are delivered from a communications service provider to the requesting authority. The `handover interface' is implemented within systems or equipment (
2. `Handover interfaces' may be specified by international standards (including but not limited to ETSI TS 101 331, ETSI TS 101 671, 3GPP TS 33.108) or national equivalents.
e.2. Mapping of the relational network or tracking the movement of targeted individuals based on the results of searches on content of communication or metadata or searches as described in 5D001.e.1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Importation of Prescription Drugs Final Rule Questions and Answers.” The guidance is intended to help small entities comply with the final rule entitled “Importation of Prescription Drugs.” The final rule was issued to implement a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to allow importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions”” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Lyndsay Hennessey, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-7605.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Importation of Prescription Drugs Final Rule Questions and Answers.” We are issuing this guidance in accordance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28) to help small entities better understand and comply with the final rule, “Importation of Prescription Drugs,” published in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Importation of Prescription Drugs Final Rule Questions and Answers. 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.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 251 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0888.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division), via a letter dated April 13, 2021. This rulemaking addresses the repeal of a State regulation related to delegation of authority and removal of the regulation from the North Carolina SIP. EPA is finalizing approval of these changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This rule is effective June 27, 2022.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0472. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Andres Febres, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
On April 13, 2021, the State of North Carolina submitted changes to the North Carolina SIP for EPA's approval.
Through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA proposed to approve these changes on March 31, 2022.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. Specifically, EPA is finalizing the removal of 15A NCAC 02D, Rule .0615,
EPA is finalizing the approval of changes to the North Carolina SIP. Specifically, for the reasons described in the March 31, 2022, NPRM, EPA is finalizing the removal of 15 NCAC 02D, Rule .0615,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• 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);
• 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 safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 25, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
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.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a statute that prohibits DoD from entering into contracts for the procurement of goods and services with any person that has business operations with an authority of the government of Venezuela that is not recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the United States Government.
Effective May 26, 2022.
Kimberly Bass, telephone 571-372-6174.
DoD published a proposed rule in the
DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments is provided, as follows:
To further clarify and to eliminate any ambiguity, the solicitation provision 252.225-7055, Representation Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime, was revised to clarify that “. . . by submission of its offer, the Offeror represents that the Offeror is a person that—(1) Does not have any business operations with an authority of the Maduro regime or the government of Venezuela that is not recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the U.S. Government; or . . .”. The contract clause 252.225-7056, Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime, applies to the entity that was awarded the contract. Therefore, no change was made to the clause.
Additional revisions were made to the text and clause number designations to accommodate updated numerical designations required in the final rule. In addition, a revision was made to 225.7020-4, Joint Determination, to explicitly state that delegation authority is to remain at the level of Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State without power of redelegation.
The following changes have been made throughout the final rule:
This rule creates a new provision and a new clause: (1) DFARS 252.225-7055, Representation Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime; and (2) DFARS 252.225-7056, Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime. DoD applies the provision and the clause to solicitations, contracts, or subcontracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) and to the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products, including commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, as defined at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101. This DFARS rule implements section 890 of the NDAA for FY 2020. Section 890 prohibits contracts for the procurement of goods and services with any person that has business operations with an authority of the government of Venezuela, subject to exceptions.
41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the SAT. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Principal
10 U.S.C. 2375 exempts contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items (including COTS items) from provisions of law enacted after October 13, 1994, that, as determined by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)), set forth policies, procedures, requirements, or restrictions for the acquisition of property or services unless—
The provision of law—
This authority has been delegated to the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting.
Section 890 of the NDAA for FY 2020 is silent on applicability to contracts and subcontracts in amounts no greater than the SAT or for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products including COTS items. Also, the statute does not provide for civil or criminal penalties. Therefore, it does not apply to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the SAT or to the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services unless the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, makes a written determination as provided in 41 U.S.C. 1905 and 10 U.S.C. 2375.
Not applying this rule to contracts and subcontracts at or below the SAT and for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products, including COTS items, would exclude contracts intended to be covered by this rule and undermine the overarching purpose of the rule, which is to prohibit contracts for the procurement of goods and services with any person that has business operations with an authority of the government of Venezuela, subject to the listed exceptions. This is particularly true with regard to the acquisition of fuel and petroleum, procurements which are usually commercial products and commercial services. To not include the acquisition of fuel and petroleum within this prohibition or to not apply the prohibition at or below the SAT will unacceptably diminish the impact of these sanctions on the Maduro regime, the government of Venezuela that is not recognized by the United States Government as the legitimate government of Venezuela. Subsequently, DoD has applied the rule to contracts and subcontracts at or below the SAT and for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products, including COTS items.
This rule creates new DFARS provision 252.225-7055, Representation Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime, and new clause 252.225-7056, Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime. The new provision and clause are prescribed at 225.7020-5(a) and (b). DoD has applied the requirements of section 890 of the NDAA for FY 2020 to contracts at or below the SAT. Section 890 prohibits DoD from entering into a contract for the procurement of products or services with any person that has business operations with an authority of the government of Venezuela that is not recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the United States Government subject to the listed exceptions.
The rule does not add any new burden. Contracting officers will include the provision and the clause in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products including COTS items, unless an exception at 225.7020-3(b) applies or a joint determination has been made in accordance with 225.7020-4.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The final rule is necessary to revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 890 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 that prohibits contracts for the procurement of goods and services with any person that has business operations with an authority of the government of Venezuela, subject to exceptions for contracts that are—
• Jointly determined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to be necessary for certain humanitarian or disaster relief purposes or vital to the national security interests of the United States;
• Related to the operation and maintenance of the United States Government's consular offices and diplomatic posts in Venezuela; or
• Awarded to a person that has a valid license to operate in Venezuela issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.
The objective of the rule is to implement section 890 of the NDAA for FY 2020.
No public comments were received in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
DoD reviewed data obtained from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019 (including contracts that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold) to determine the estimated impact of the rule on U.S. small businesses. There were no DoD actions reported to FPDS in FY 2017 through FY 2019 for which the contractor is located in Venezuela or the place of performance is Venezuela.
This rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities.
DoD has not identified any alternative approaches to the rule that would meet the requirements of the statute.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212, 225, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(f) * * *
(x) * * *
(II) Use the provision at 252.225-7055, Representation Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime, as prescribed in 225.7020-5(a), to comply with section 890 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92).
(JJ) Use the clause at 252.225-7056, Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime, as prescribed in 225.7020-5(b), to comply with section 890 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92).
As used in this section—
(1) A natural person, corporation, company, business association, partnership, society, trust, or any other nongovernmental entity, organization, or group;
(2) Any governmental entity or instrumentality of a government, including a multilateral development institution (as defined in section 1701(c)(3) of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(3)); and
(3) Any successor, subunit, parent entity, or subsidiary of, or any entity under common ownership or control with, any entity described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.
In accordance with section 890 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92), DoD is prohibited from entering into a contract for the procurement of products or services with any person that has business operations with an authority of the government of Venezuela that is not recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the U.S. Government, except as provided in 225.7020-3 or 225.7020-4.
The prohibition in 225.7020-2 does not apply if—
(a) The person has a valid license to operate in Venezuela issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury; or
(b) The acquisition is related to the operation and maintenance of the U.S. Government's consular office and diplomatic posts in Venezuela.
(a) The prohibition in section 225.7020-2 does not apply to an acquisition jointly determined by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, without power of redelegation, to be—
(1) Necessary for purposes of—
(i) Providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Venezuela;
(ii) Disaster relief and other urgent lifesaving measures; or
(iii) Carrying out noncombatant evacuations; or
(2) Vital to the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Follow the procedures at PGI 225.7020-4(b) when entering into a contract on the basis of a joint determination.
(a) Use the provision at 252.225-7055, Representation Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime, in solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that include the clause at 252.225-7056, Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime.
(b) Unless the exception at 225.7020-3(b) applies or a joint determination has been made in accordance with 225.7020-4, use the clause at 252.225-7056, Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro Regime, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items.
As prescribed in 225.7020-5(a), use the following provision:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Does not have any business operations with an authority of the Maduro regime or the government of Venezuela that is not recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the U.S. Government; or
(2) Has a valid license to operate in Venezuela issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.
As prescribed in 225.7020-5(b), use the following clause:
(a)
(1) A natural person, corporation, company, business association, partnership, society, trust, or any other nongovernmental entity, organization, or group;
(2) Any governmental entity or instrumentality of a government, including a multilateral development institution (as defined in section 1701(c)(3) of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(3)); and
(3) Any successor, subunit, parent entity, or subsidiary of, or any entity under common ownership or control with, any entity described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.
(b)
(c) The Contractor shall—
(1) Not have any business operations with an authority of the Maduro regime or the government of Venezuela that is not recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the U.S. Government; or
(2) Have a valid license to operate in Venezuela issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.
(d)
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to modify the nomenclature used for the threshold for the small business specialist review of acquisitions to align it with the threshold for small business set-asides at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.502-2(a).
Effective May 26, 2022.
Ms. Jeanette Snyder, 571-372-6106.
DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the DFARS to revise the nomenclature used to identify the threshold for the small business specialist review of acquisitions at DFARS 219.201(c)(10)(A) to use the term “micro-purchase threshold” in lieu of the dollar amount “$10,000” to align it with FAR 19.502-2(a). The dollar threshold at FAR 19.502-2(a) was modified to reflect the “micro-purchase threshold” on August 31, 2020, via FAR case 2018-004 (85 FR 40064, July 2, 2020); however, the threshold at DFARS 219.201(c)(10)(A) was not similarly adjusted. This final rule makes that conforming adjustment.
DFARS 219.201(c)(10)(A) requires small business specialists to review and make recommendations for all acquisitions over $10,000 except for those under the simplified acquisition threshold that are totally set aside for small business concerns. Since the threshold at FAR 19.502-2(a) for total small business set-asides is “the micro-purchase threshold”, the threshold at DFARS 219.201(c)(10)(A) is being changed for consistency. This final rule does not modify the dollar value of the threshold since the micro-purchase threshold and the small business specialist review threshold are both $10,000 unless an exception applies in
This rule does not change the requirements for the small business specialist review of acquisitions. Small business specialists will continue to review acquisitions over the micro-purchase threshold, except those under the simplified acquisition threshold that are totally set aside for small business concerns.
The statute that applies to the publication of the FAR is 41 U.S.C. 1707, Publication of Proposed Regulations. Subsection (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it merely modifies the nomenclature used to describe an existing threshold; it does not change the dollar value of the threshold. The threshold affects only the internal operating procedures of the Government.
This rule does not create any new solicitation provisions or contract clauses. It does not impact any existing solicitation provisions, contract clauses, or prescriptions for the use of solicitation provisions or contract clauses.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 219 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces the closure of the Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Management Area for the remainder of the 2022 fishing year for Limited Access General Category vessels. Regulations require this action once NMFS projects that 100 percent of the Limited Access General Category total allowable catch for the Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Management Area will be harvested. This action is intended to prevent the overharvest of the 2022 total allowable catch allocated to the Limited Access General Category Fishery.
Effective 0001 hr local time, May 26, 2022, through March 31, 2023.
Louis Forristall, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9321.
The regulations governing fishing activity in the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Scallop Management Area are located in 50 CFR 648.54 and 648.62. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Federal scallop permit to fish in the NGOM Scallop Management Area under specific conditions, including a default total allowable catch (TAC) of 621,307 lb (281,820 kg) for the Limited Access General Category (LAGC) fleet for the 2022 fishing year, and a State Waters Exemption Program for the State of Maine and Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Section 648.62(b)(2) requires the NGOM Scallop Management Area to be closed to scallop vessels issued Federal LAGC scallop permits, except as provided below, for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that 100 percent of the LAGC TAC for the fishing year is projected to be harvested. Any vessel that holds a Federal NGOM (LAGC B) or Individual Fishing Quota
Based on trip declarations by federally permitted LAGC scallop vessels fishing in the NGOM Scallop Management Area and analysis of fishing effort, we project that the 2022 LAGC TAC will be harvested as of May 26, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.62(b)(2), the NGOM Scallop Management Area is closed to all federally permitted LAGC scallop vessels as of May 26, 2022. As of this date, no vessel issued a Federal LAGC scallop permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the NGOM Scallop Management Area after 0001 local time, May 26, 2022, unless the vessel is fishing exclusively in state waters and is participating in an approved state waters exemption program as specified in § 648.54. Any federally permitted LAGC scallop vessel that has declared into the NGOM Scallop Management Area, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the vessel monitoring system demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, May 26, 2022, may complete its trip and land scallops. This closure is in effect until the end of the 2022 scallop fishing year, through March 31, 2023.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. NMFS also finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons noted below. The NGOM Scallop Management Area opened for the 2022 fishing year on April 1, 2022. The regulations at § 648.60(b)(2) require this closure to ensure that federally permitted scallop vessels do not harvest more than the allocated LAGC TAC for the NGOM Scallop Management Area. NMFS can only make projections for the NGOM closure date as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends appear. As a result, NMFS can typically make an accurate projection only shortly before the TAC is harvested. The rapid harvest rate that has occurred in the last two weeks makes it more difficult to project a closure well in advance. To allow federally permitted LAGC scallop vessels to continue taking trips in the NGOM Scallop Management Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would result in vessels harvesting more than the 2022 LAGC TAC for the NGOM Scallop Management Area. This would result in excessive fishing effort in the area thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures to make up for the excessive harvest. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when we solicited comments during rulemaking for 2022 NGOM management provisions (February 15, 2022; 87 FR 8543).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notification of availability of preliminary technical support document; reopening of public comment period.
On March 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the
The comment period for the notification of a preliminary analysis regarding energy conservation standards for ACIMs published in the
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking Portal, email, postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
To inform interested parties and to facilitate this rulemaking process, DOE has prepared an agenda, a preliminary TSD, and briefing materials, which are available on the DOE website at:
The docket web page can be found at
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943 Email:
Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
On March 25, 2022, DOE published a notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document for ACIMs. This document announced a public meeting webinar would be held on April 25, 2022, and a comment period deadline of May 24, 2022. Additionally, on March 24, 2022, DOE received a request from the Hoshizaki America, Inc. to move the webinar date due to a conflict with an industry-wide Conference. To accommodate these scheduling issues, DOE moved the public meeting webinar for ACIMs to Thursday, May 5, 2022. On May 16, 2022, DOE received a comment from the American Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Institute (AHRI) seeking a 60-day extension of the public comment period for ACIMs. AHRI justified their request citing a need for more time to gather data and to avoid other meeting conflicts. On May 17, 2022, DOE received a comment from the North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) seeking a 60-day extension of the public comment period for ACIMs. NAFEM justified their request citing a need for more time to gather data and to avoid other meeting conflicts. On May 18, 2022, DOE received a comment from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) seeking a 60-day extension of the public comment period for ACIMs. AHAM justified their request citing that this comment period overlaps with other DOE comment periods and a need for a response from DOE on a question regarding the shipments analysis that came up during the May 5, 2022, ACIM webinar. The response to question about the shipments analysis that was raised by AHAM on the May 5, 2022, webinar is
Through this notification, DOE will reopen the comment period and accept submissions of comments, data, information until June 7, 2022. Accordingly, DOE will now accept written comments and information on the notification of a preliminary analysis regarding energy conservation standards for ACIMs submitted on and before June 7, 2022.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 23, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; policy assessment.
On or about May 23, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make available the document,
This document will be available on or about May 23, 2022.
This document will be available on the EPA's website at
Dr. Lars Perlmutt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (Mail Code C539-04), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-3037, fax number: 919-541-5315; or email:
Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then issue “air quality criteria” for those pollutants. The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air . . .” (CAA section 108(a)(2)). Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA is then to establish primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for each pollutant for which the EPA has issued air quality criteria. Section 109(d)(1) of the Act requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. Revised air quality criteria are to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. Under the same provision, the EPA is also to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria.
The Act additionally requires appointment of an independent scientific review committee that is to periodically review the existing air quality criteria and NAAQS and to recommend any new standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate (CAA section 109(d)(2)(A)-(B)). Since the early 1980s, the requirement for an independent scientific review committee has been fulfilled by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). In December 2020, the EPA announced its final decision to retain the primary and secondary PM
The document briefly described above does not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) received on June 10, 2021. The submission revises Missouri's regulation on construction permit exemptions. These revisions include updates to incorporations by reference, remove unnecessary words, and make minor clarifications and grammatical changes. These revisions do not impact the stringency of the SIP or have an adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this rule revision is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2022.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0422 to
Bethany Olson, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7905; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0422, at
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri SIP received on June 10, 2021. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-6.061 “Construction Permit Exemptions”. The purpose of the state regulation is to list specific construction or modification projects that are exempt from the requirement to obtain permits to construct under 10 CSR 10-6.060. Missouri made several revisions to the rule. These proposed revisions to the rule update incorporations by references, remove unnecessary words, and make minor clarifications and grammatical changes. EPA proposes to find that these revisions meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, do not impact the stringency of the SIP, and do not adversely impact air quality. The full text of the rule revisions as well as EPA's analysis of the revisions are contained in the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action.
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from January 2, 2020, to April 2, 2020, and held a public hearing on March 26, 2020. Missouri received six comments from three sources during the comment period on 10 CSR 10-6.061. The EPA provided four comments. Missouri responded to all comments and revised the rule based on public comment prior to submitting to EPA, as noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action.
In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document (TSD) which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.061 “Construction Permit Exemptions.” We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.061 as described in Section II of this preamble and set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act (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
• 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);
• 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 safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Corporation for National and Community Service, operating as AmeriCorps (AmeriCorps), proposes to adopt regulations to indemnify AmeriCorps employees who, because of conduct taken within the scope of employment with AmeriCorps, have a verdict, judgment, monetary award, or personal damages claim issued against them that is not otherwise covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act. These proposed regulations set out how AmeriCorps employees may request indemnification or settlement of a claim
Comments must reach AmeriCorps on or before July 25, 2022.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
(1) Electronically through
(2) By mail sent to: AmeriCorps; Attention Kiara Rhodes, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC, 20525.
(3) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the address above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be made available to the public through
Kiara Rhodes, Associate General Counsel, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525,
AmeriCorps proposes to adopt employee indemnification regulations for circumstances not covered by the Federal Employee Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (FELRTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(1), or the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). FELRTCA provides that, with certain exceptions, the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by a Federal employee acting in the scope of employment, such that the United States must be substituted as the defendant and the claim must proceed against the Government under the FTCA.
AmeriCorps believes that actions against its employees in their personal capacities and the potential for a judgment against agency employees may hinder the agency's effectiveness in meeting its mission. AmeriCorps employees' ability to carry out functions related to volunteer management and grant-making depends on the willingness of the employees to make decisions and take actions that may expose them to liability. Uncertainty regarding the potential for a personal liability claim resulting in monetary judgment may intimidate employees, stifle creativity and initiative, and limit decisive action. The threat of personal liability for a decision made or action taken as part of official duties can adversely affect AmeriCorps' achievement of its mission. The adoption of these regulations permitting indemnification would afford AmeriCorps employees the same protection given to Federal employees in several other government agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, Agency for International Development, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Justice.
The rule being proposed here would address these situations when an AmeriCorps employee is sued in their personal capacity for conduct performed in the scope of their employment, by providing the process for AmeriCorps employees to request indemnification or settlement of a claim and the circumstances in which AmeriCorps may approve indemnification or settlement of a claim.
The proposed rule would allow AmeriCorps to indemnify a present or former AmeriCorps employee who is personally named as a defendant in a legal proceeding for conduct arising within the scope of their employment when the FTCA does not apply because (1) the claim alleges the conduct is a violation of the Constitution; or (2) the claim alleges a violation of a Federal statute that authorizes the claim; or (3) the claim is brought under State or common law against a Federal employee for whom the United States has formally substituted itself, but for which a court rejected substitution. The regulations would permit AmeriCorps to indemnify an Agency employee who suffers an adverse verdict, judgment, or other monetary award, provided that the actions giving rise to the judgment were taken within the scope of employment, and that AmeriCorps determines that the indemnification is in its interest. The regulations would also allow AmeriCorps to settle a claim brought against an employee in their individual capacity by the payment of funds, upon a similar determination. Generally, AmeriCorps will not entertain a request to indemnify a personal damage claim against an employee before entry of an adverse verdict, judgment, or monetary award. However, in certain cases, AmeriCorps may determine that exceptional circumstances justify the earlier indemnification or payment of a settlement amount. The proposed rule would provide procedures for present or former AmeriCorps employees to follow if they are personally named in these types of lawsuits and wish to be indemnified, and also would provide procedures for AmeriCorps' review of requests for indemnification.
AmeriCorps welcomes public comment on the proposed regulations, particularly on the scope of the proposed rule and its applicability to Agency employees. AmeriCorps' intent is to provide an avenue to employee indemnification—at the Agency's sole discretion—for circumstances not covered by the FELRTCA or FTCA.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, AmeriCorps will submit for an interim or final rule a report to each chamber of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures in either Federal, State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector.
Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collections of information display valid control numbers. This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has Federalism implications if the rule imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule does not have any Federalism implications, as described above.
This proposed rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 because this proposed rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment or involve a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is not required.
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this proposed rule: (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and (b) meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
AmeriCorps recognizes the inherent sovereignty of Indian Tribes and their right to self-governance. We have evaluated this proposed rule under the AmeriCorps consultation policy and the criteria in E.O. 13175 and determined that this proposed rule does not impose substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes.
We are required by Executive orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each proposed rule we publish must: (a) Be logically organized; (b) use the active voice to address readers directly; (c) use clear language rather than jargon; (d) be divided into short sections and sentences; and (e) use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, please send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Indemnity payments.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), the Corporation for National and Community Service proposes to amend chapter XXV of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 2502 to read as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c).
The purpose of this part is to provide the procedures for indemnification of AmeriCorps employees who are personally named in certain legal proceedings not covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) or the Federal Employee Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (FELRTCA) when AmeriCorps determines both that the actions arose within the scope of their AmeriCorps employment and that indemnification is in the Agency's
(a) This part is applicable to all former and current AmeriCorps employees, including special Government employees.
(b) This part does not apply to volunteers, service members, contractors, or any other individuals who may be affiliated with AmeriCorps, but not employed by the agency.
AmeriCorps may, at its sole discretion, indemnify an AmeriCorps employee for a verdict, judgment, or other monetary award rendered against the employee personally in a claim or may settle or compromise a personal damages claim against an AmeriCorps employee if:
(a) The CEO determines that the AmeriCorps employee's conduct giving rise to the verdict, judgment, monetary award, or claim was taken within the scope of their employment;
(b) The CEO determines that the indemnification or settlement is in AmeriCorps' best interest; and
(c) AmeriCorps appropriated funds are available for the indemnification or settlement.
(a) AmeriCorps may settle or compromise a claim against an AmeriCorps employee at any time.
(b) Unless there are exceptional circumstances, as determined by the CEO, AmeriCorps will not consider a request to indemnify a claim before entry of an adverse verdict, judgment, or award.
An AmeriCorps employee may seek indemnification or settlement in any civil action or proceeding brought, in any court, for a covered claim.
An AmeriCorps employee who is named as a defendant (or the personal representative of the AmeriCorps employee's estate) in a legal proceeding that includes a covered claim and who wishes to seek indemnification must promptly notify their supervisor, who then promptly notifies the Office of General Counsel. Former employees must directly notify the Office of General Counsel.
Where appropriate, the General Counsel may request that the Department of Justice provide legal representation for the AmeriCorps employee.
To request indemnification for a verdict, judgment, award, or settlement proposal of a covered claim, the AmeriCorps employee must:
(a) Have complied with the requirements of § 2502.70.
(b) Submit a written request, via their supervisor, to the head of the employee's office, or (in the case a former employee) directly to the Office of General Counsel. The written request must include appropriate documentation, including copies of the verdict, judgment, award, or settlement proposal.
(a) The head of the office or their designee will review the employee's request and submit all of the following to the General Counsel:
(1) The original or a copy of the employee's request.
(2) A recommendation to approve or deny the request.
(3) A detailed analysis of the basis for a recommendation.
(4) A certification from the Chief Financial Officer as to whether the agency has funds available to pay the indemnification.
(b) The General Counsel will:
(1) Review the circumstances of the incident that gaverise to the action or proceeding, and all data relevant to the question of whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment.
(2) Where appropriate, seek the views of the U.S. Department of Justice and/or the U.S. Attorney for the district encompassing the location where the action or proceeding is brought.
(3) Prepare a recommendation to approve or deny the request.
(4) Forward the request, the accompanying documentation, and the General Counsel's recommendation to the CEO for a decision.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by Spottswood Partners II, Ltd, proposing to amend the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting Channel 265C3 to Big Coppitt Key, Florida, as the first local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 265C3 can be allotted to Big Coppitt Key, Florida, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules (Rules), with a site restriction of 14.5 km (9.0 miles) northeast of the community. The reference coordinates are 24-39-34 NL and 81-32-17 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before July 11, 2022, and reply comments on or before July 26, 2022.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 22-188, adopted May 17, 2022, and released May 18, 2022. The full text of this Commission decision is available online at
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a notice of proposed rulemaking is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(b) * * *
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 27, 2022. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Regional Food Business Centers will be the backbone for local and regional supply chain development and will offer coordination, technical assistance, and capacity building support to small and mid-sized food and farm businesses which will lead to more resilient, diverse, and connected supply chains. This program will provide a way for geographic regions to tailor development and investment to fit their needs, while recognizing that resilient supply chains are built upon strong relationships between individuals, communities, regions, sectors, and institutions. The RFBCs will support coordination in their region, fund technical assistance (TA) providers to offer business technical assistance to food and farm businesses and provide small grants to food businesses looking to expand or start in their region.
The data collection will include the collection of application information, quarterly reports, in addition to biannual interviews and quantitative information related to RFBCs (awardees), the TA providers (sub-awardees) and the businesses they fund.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 27, 2022. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to extend and revise a previously approved information collection, entitled
Written comments on this notice must be received by July 25, 2022 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Robert Martin, 202-445-5388,
NIFA is requesting a three-year extension for the current collection entitled “NIFA Proposal Review Process.” NIFA is also proposing to update the collection so that the previously approved Reviewer Questionnaire, as well as the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form are both available on NIFA's Peer Review System (PRS) web-based portal. Additionally, NIFA is proposing some minor updates to the wording of questions in the Reviewer Questionnaire in order to ensure that peer review panels have the required scientific and technical expertise, comprised of research, education, extension, and other subject matter experts as appropriate, while remaining inclusive, representative, and diverse. Furthermore, the data collected through this questionnaire will ensure that NIFA is compliant in its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) practices.
Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer Review System.
The information collected from the evaluations is used to support NIFA grant programs. NIFA uses the results of the proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal should be declined or recommended for award. When NIFA has rendered a decision, copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the submitting Project Director.
Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of the proposal with the scientific and technical expertise of the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in the NIFA database, the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic biographical information including address, contact information, professional expertise, and their availability to review for NIFA in the future. If the reviewer is new, they are prompted to complete the questionnaire. This information has been invaluable in the NIFA review process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality.
The applications and associated materials made available to reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed to or discussed with anyone who has not been officially designated to participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the panel review proceedings is collected to emphasize and reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form, the panelist affirms they understand the
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
On December 17, 2020, NRCS published a notice of proposed guidance for NIPF identification and provided a 30-day public comment period for input. NRCS received 139 comments from different members of the public, including Indian Tribes, State agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individuals. Several of these comments provided coordinated input from many organizations, including one letter that provided input from over 60 organizations. This document responds to comments received during the public comment period, which closed on January 19, 2021, and, for the reasons stated in this document, identifies that NRCS will not adopt the guidance it proposed in its December 2020 notice.
May 26, 2022.
Martha Joseph, telephone: (814) 203-5562; email:
NRCS is one of the USDA agencies that identifies NIPF for program enrollment. In particular, NRCS identifies NIPF for enrollment in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP).
Identification for NIPF enrollment under these NRCS programs is based on section 1201(a)(18) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (the 1985 Farm Bill) (16 U.S.C. 3801), which defines NIPF as rural land, as determined by the Secretary, that:
• Has existing tree cover or is suitable for growing trees; and
• Is owned by any nonindustrial private individual, group, association, corporation, Indian Tribe, or other private legal entity that has definitive decision-making authority over the land.
Since the NIPF definition was first established several decades ago, changes have occurred in the forestry industry. In particular, foresters would identify the “industrial” status of a parcel of land by whether or not a company was vertically integrated (for example, the landowner owned both forestland and primary wood processing facilities). However, the ability to distinguish whether a particular parcel of land is industrial or nonindustrial became complicated when companies started to divest either their land or mills at the turn of the 21st century and timber investment management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs) reflected an increasing amount of industrial forest land ownership.
To address these changes in the forestry industry, NRCS described in its December 2020 notice, proposed guidance that would be used to identify NIPF as defined by the 1985 Farm Bill and NRCS program regulations. NRCS was not re-defining NIPF but was providing guidelines for helping its staff identify the various components of the statutory definition. Referencing criteria used by other conservation agencies (the USDA Forest Service and Farm Service Agency), NRCS proposed to clarify how to identify a nonindustrial private landowner if they:
(1)(i) Own fewer than 45,000 acres of forest land in the United States; and
(ii) Do not own or operate an industrial mill for the primary processing of raw wood products as determined by NRCS in consultation with the State Technical Committee; or
(2) Meet criteria established for a nonindustrial private landowner by NRCS in a State in consultation with the State Technical Committee.
NRCS received a total of 91 letters or emails containing 139 comments. The comments were from forestry or agricultural stakeholders, conservation organizations, individuals, Tribal entities, other organizations, and governmental agencies. One of the letters was signed by over 60 organizations. NRCS review of the comments revealed a clear stakeholder preference that NRCS continue to use the existing programmatic framework until Congress can address how the changes in the forestry industry should
This document summarizes the comments and explains the NRCS decision not to adopt revised NIPF technical guidance at this time. The comments are organized alphabetically by topic. The topics include: Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitation, funding, general criticism or support, landscape-level conservation benefits, large NIPF holdings, and mill ownership.
However, the 2018 Farm Bill codified RCPP as a stand-alone program and limited forest land eligibility to NIPF, necessitating criteria to identify individual industrial landowners. The availability of the general AGI waiver and the more program-specific AGI waiver has the potential to allow more affluent corporate owners to participate.
NRCS has decided that it would be more appropriate to rely, in part, upon the AGI limitation and waiver criteria
NRCS considers the JFT a valuable resource for receiving input with respect to forestry issues, and the public comment period provided JFT member organizations an opportunity to provide input to the guidance. Additionally, NRCS understands the sentiment to receive additional input from Congress, and therefore, NRCS is not going to adopt revised technical guidance at this time.
Additional comments were specific to the applicability of the threshold with respect to Tribal land, especially land owned by Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs). The comments received from Tribal entities such as ANCs expressed concern that the acreage limitation did not consider the sovereign nature of Tribal landholdings or that ANCs often have very large acreages that would be excluded from NRCS assistance.
Many of the comments opposed the acreage criterion, stating that the acreage limitation was arbitrary, that such a limitation does not exist in statute, and that imposition of the acreage threshold would eliminate valuable conservation opportunities. Several of these comments identified that it was an error to equate large commercial land holdings with the term “industrial” since much of this land must be subject to stewardship requirements. These commenters also expressed the view that it was a mistake to equate commercial thinning and logging activities with the term “industrial.”
However, NRCS also received many comments expressing support for the 45,000-acre threshold, but criticism that this threshold was too large for someone to identify themselves as non-industrial, and recommendations instead for a
(1) Making all forest land eligible;
(2) Issuing the proposed guidance as final with no changes;
(3) Relying completely on whether there is a mill on site to determine whether land is industrial;
(4) Revising the guidance to identify exceptions to the mill and acreage criteria; or
(5) Continuing to rely, in part, upon AGI and other payment eligibility requirements to act as a surrogate for identification of industrial land holdings.
NRCS rejected the first option as Congress specified that only NIPF lands were eligible for certain NRCS programs. NRCS also rejected reliance on the mill criterion alone as it failed to accommodate the last couple decades of development in the forestry industry. Given the concerns regarding the establishment of the acreage criterion, NRCS believes that it should maintain its reliance upon the mill criterion in conjunction with the AGI limitation, AGI waiver criteria, and related payment attribution eligibility to help make NIPF eligibility determinations.
• Expressing concern about small portable mills and impact to family operations,
• Recommending that NRCS use output thresholds,
• Recommending removal of the mill criterion entirely,
• Supporting that the State Conservationist defines what constitutes a mill,
• Expressing concern about potential inconsistency across States; and
• Recommending AGI for the mill criterion.
In response to the comments summarized above, NRCS will not be issuing new technical guidance to identify NIPF for program eligibility purposes. In particular, NRCS will continue to identify forest land eligibility using the traditional NIPF identification criteria, such as the presence of an industrial mill, in conjunction with payment eligibility criteria that address, in part, the changes in forest land ownership by large corporate entities.
Rural Housing Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
The Rural Housing Service (Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces that it is soliciting competitive preapplications under the Housing Preservation Grant (HPG) program for fiscal year (FY) 2022, to make available grant funds to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of housing owned or occupied by low- and very-low-income rural citizens under the HPG Program. The purpose of this notice is to announce the opening and closing dates for receipt of preapplications for HPG funds from eligible applicants, as well as submission requirements. Expenses incurred in developing preapplications will be at the applicant's cost.
Completed applications for grants must be submitted according to the deadlines outlined below. RHS will not consider any preapplications that are received after the closing deadline regardless of the submission method used.
○ Applicants intending to submit paper preapplications using the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date.
○ Acceptance by the USPS or private mailer does not constitute delivery.
○ Postage due preapplications will not be accepted
Entities that want to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements outlined in this notice from:
Application information for electronic submissions to
Applicants may also request paper application packages from the RD State offices. Contact information can be found at:
Mandy Couture, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Direct Division, Special Programs and New Initiatives Branch at (515) 418-2188 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number) or email:
This solicitation is authorized pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022; 42 U.S.C. 1490m; Public Law 117-103; and 7 CFR 1944, subpart N.
The Agency encourages applicants to consider projects that will advance the following key priorities:
• Assisting rural communities recover economically from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly disadvantaged communities;
• Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects; and
• Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities.
Additional information regarding RD's funding priorities is available at the following website:
Expenses incurred in developing grant application packages will be at the applicant's cost.
USDA's RD Agencies, comprised of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RB-CS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), are leading the way in helping rural America improve the quality of life and increase the economic opportunities for rural people.
RHS offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. The Agency offers loans, grants, and loan guarantees for single- and multi-family housing, child-care centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, first responder vehicles and equipment, housing for farm laborers and much more. Additionally, RHS programs provide technical assistance loans and grants in partnership with non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, state and Federal government agencies, and local communities.
The HPG program is a grant program administered by the Single Family Housing program of RHS. It is limited to eligible rural areas and to qualified entities (such as public agencies, private non-profit organizations, and federally recognized tribes). Grant funds can be used to assist low- and very low-income homeowners in repairing and rehabilitating their homes in rural areas.
The program assists cooperative housing complexes and rental property owners in rural areas in repairing and rehabilitating their units if they agree to make such units available to very low- and low-income persons. Rental property owners can include Section 515 rental properties if the eligibility requirements are met for the HPG program. In accordance with 7 CFR 1944.663, rental property owners must agree to make the units repaired or rehabilitated available for occupancy to very low- or low-income persons for a period of not less than five years. The minimum five-year rent restriction for very low- and low-income tenants will only apply to the units that are repaired with the HPG funding. Any units within the property that were not repaired with HPG funding will not be subject to the five-year restriction.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-103) established a set-aside for grants located in Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones (REAP Zones). The State Office will indicate on the list submitted to the National Office if the preapplication is eligible for the REAP Zones set-aside. The National Office will then compile a national list, rank the REAP Zones applicants based on the point allocations set forth in this
1.
2.
3.
I.
1. A preapplication package;
(i) A downloadable preapplication package for this program is available by accessing the website:
(ii) Users of
2. SF-424;
(i) Made available by contacting any RD State Office at the website:
(ii)
3. A statement of activities proposed by the applicant for its HPG program as appropriate to the type of assistance the applicant is proposing, including:
(i) A complete discussion of the type of and conditions for financial assistance for housing preservation, including whether the request for assistance is for a homeowner assistance program, a rental property assistance program, or a cooperative assistance program.
(ii) The process for selecting recipients for HPG assistance, determining housing preservation needs of the dwelling, performing the necessary work, and monitoring/inspecting work performed.
(iii) A description of the process for coordinating with other public and private organizations and programs that provide assistance in rehabilitation of historic properties in accordance with 7 CFR 1944.673.
(iv) The development standard(s) the applicant will use for the housing preservation work; and, if not the RD standards for existing dwellings, the evidence of its acceptance by the jurisdiction where the grant will be implemented.
(v) The time schedule for completing the program.
(vi) The staffing required to complete the program.
(vii) The estimated number of very low- and low-income minority and non-minority persons the grantee will assist with HPG funds; and, if a rental property or cooperative assistance program, the number of units and the term of restrictive covenants on their use for very low- and low-income.
(viii) The geographical area(s) to be served by the HPG program.
(ix) The annual estimated budget for the program period based on the financial needs to accomplish the objectives outlined in the proposal. The applicant can use SF-424a to provide this information.
(x) A copy of an indirect cost proposal/rate or direct cost policy when the applicant has another source of federal funding in addition to the RD HPG program.
(xi) A brief description of the accounting system to be used.
(xii) The method of evaluation to be used by the applicant to determine the effectiveness of its program which encompasses the requirements for quarterly reports to RD in accordance with 7 CFR 1944.683(b) and the monitoring plan for rental properties and cooperatives (when applicable) according to 7 CFR 1944.689.
(xiii) The source and estimated amount of other financial resources to be obtained and used by the applicant for both HPG activities and housing development and/or supporting activities.
(xiv) The use of program income; if any, and the tracking system used for monitoring same.
(xv) The applicant's plan for disposition of any security instruments held by them as a result of its HPG activities in the event of its loss of legal status.
(xvi) Any other information necessary to explain the proposed HPG program.
(xvii) The outreach efforts outlined in 7 CFR 1944.671(b).
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
(i) The applicant must submit written statements and related correspondence reflecting compliance with 7 CFR 1944.674(a) regarding consultation with local leaders from the county, parish, and/or township governments of the area where the HPG activities will take place for the purpose of assuring that the proposed HPG program is beneficial and does not duplicate current activities. American Indian non-profit organization applicants should obtain the written concurrence of the tribal governing body in lieu of consulting with the county governments with the program is operated only on tribal land.
(ii) The applicant is to make its statement of activities available to the public for comment prior to submission to RD pursuant to 7 CFR 1944.674(b). The applicant(s) must announce the availability of its statement of activities for review in a print or online newspaper of general circulation in the project area and allow at least 15 days for public comment. The start of this 15-day period must occur no later than 16 days prior to the last day for acceptance of preapplications by USDA RD. Federally recognized Indian Tribes, pursuant to 7 CFR 1944.674, should obtain the written concurrence of the tribal governing body in lieu of consulting with the county governments when the program is operated only on tribal land. The preapplication must contain a description of how the comments (if any were received) were addressed.
13.
Applicants should review 7 CFR part 1944, subpart N for a comprehensive list of all application requirements. Preapplications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or are missing required elements.
1.
2.
For preapplications transmitted via
(i) When entering the
(ii) After applying electronically through
Applicants that receive a grant award under this Notice, USDA reserves the right to post all information that is not protected by the Privacy Act submitted as part of the preapplication/application package on a public website with free and open access to any member of the public.
3.
(i) At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR 25. To register in SAM, entities will be required to create a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at
(ii) Applicants must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a federal awarding agency.
(iii) Applicants must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(iv) Applicants must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.
(v) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
4.
5.
1.
2.
(a) Providing a financially feasible program of housing preservation assistance. “Financially feasible” is defined as proposed assistance which will be affordable to the intended recipient or result in affordable housing for very low- and low-income persons.
(b) Serving eligible rural areas with a concentration of substandard housing for households of very low- and low-income.
(c) Being an eligible applicant as defined in 7 CFR 1944.658.
(d) Meeting the requirements of consultation and public comment in accordance with 7 CFR 1944.674.
(e) Submitting a complete preapplication as outlined in 7 CFR 1944.676:
3.
(1) Points are awarded based on the percentage of very low-income persons that the applicant proposes to assist, using the following scale:
(2) The applicant's proposal may be expected to result in the following percentage of HPG fund use (excluding administrative costs) to total cost of unit preservation. This percentage reflects maximum repair or rehabilitation with the least possible HPG funds due to leveraging, innovative financial assistance, owner's contribution, or other specified approaches. Points are awarded based on the following percentage of HPG funds (excluding administrative costs) to total funds:
(3) The applicant has demonstrated its administrative capacity in assisting very low- and low-income persons to obtain adequate housing based on the following:
(i) The organization or a member of its staff has at least one or more years of experience successfully managing and operating a rehabilitation or weatherization type program: 10 points.
(ii) The organization or a member of its staff has at least one or more years of experience successfully managing and operating a program assisting very low- and low-income persons obtain housing assistance: 10 points.
(iii) If the organization has administered grant programs, there are no outstanding or unresolved audit or investigative findings which might impair carrying out the proposal: 10 points.
(4) The proposed program will be undertaken entirely in rural areas outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) identified by RD as having populations below 10,000 or in remote parts of other rural areas (
(5) The program will use less than 20 percent of HPG funds for administration purposes:
(6) The proposed program contains a component for alleviating overcrowding as defined in 7 CFR 1944.656: 5 points.
In the event more than one preapplication receives the same number of points, those preapplications will then be ranked based on the actual percentage figure used for determining the points in item (1) in the “
Further, if preapplications are still tied, then those preapplications still tied will be ranked based on the percentage figures used for determining the points in item (2) in the “
Further, 7 CFR 1944.679 (c),
If any of the applicants that remain tied after the 1st and 2nd tie-breaks are offering to assist single family owners,
If there is still a tie after the first two [
After the award selections are made by the National Office, all applicants will be notified of the status of their preapplications by email or mail with Form AD-622, “
1.
2.
(a) The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
The grant recipient must include the required nondiscrimination statements in any of their advertisements and brochures. Grantees will be required to collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB
The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 regarding Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.
(b) The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other federal statutes, including but not limited to the following:
(i) Debarment and suspension information is required in accordance with 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension) supplemented by 2 CFR part 180, if it applies. The section heading is “What information must I provide before entering into a covered transaction with a Federal agency?” located at 2 CFR 180.335. It is part of OMB's Guidance for Grants and Agreements concerning Government-wide Debarment and Suspension.
(ii) 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).
(iii) 2 CFR part 182 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)) and 2 CFR part 421 (Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)).
(iv) Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
(v) All applicants will be screened for eligibility to participate in the grant program using Treasury's Do Not Pay Portal in compliance with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act.
3.
(i) SF-425, “Federal Financial Report.”
(ii) 1944-N Exhibit E-1, “Quarterly Performance Report.”
(iv) Bank statements for interest bearing bank account if grantee is getting cash advances.
Final award reporting requirements can be found in the 1944-N Exhibit A, “Grant Agreement”. Upon grant closeout, the grantee will furnish a final SF-425, 1944-N Exhibit E-1, and all financial, performance and other reports required as a condition of the grant. The grantee will also provide an audit report in accordance with Uniform Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
For general questions about this notice, please contact your USDA RD State Office or the program website provided in the
A.
B.
C.
In accordance with 7 CFR 1970.51 (a)(3) and 1970.55, the environmental review is a two-step process: The approval of the provision of the grant to the grantee is categorized as a Categorical Exclusion without an Environmental Report pursuant to 1970.55.
The second step is an environmental review performed by the grantee of the activity proposed by each ultimate recipient.
Rural Housing Service has entered into a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (PMOA) with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to implement the specific requirements regarding historic preservation contained in Section 533 of the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C. 1490(m) of the enabling legislation.
Grantee shall comply with Rural Development's Lead Based Paint requirements for Rehabilitation contained in subparts of 24 CFR part 35, which apply to all HPG rehabilitation activities.
E.
In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027,
(1)
(2)
(3)
Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Patheon) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio, within Subzone 46K. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 19, 2022.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include anti-viral tablets (Nirmatrelvir Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)), anti-viral tablets (Molnupiravir API), and insomnia treatment tablets (Suvorexant API) (duty free).
The proposed foreign-status materials and components include: Lactose monohydrate; colloidal silicon dioxide; magnesium stearate; sodium stearyl fumarate; Nirmatrelvir API; Molnupiravir API; Suvorexant API; color film coating formulations containing titanium dioxide (24-50%); desiccant bag (silica gel); crospovidone; croscarmellose sodium; microcrystalline cellulose; hydroxypropyl cellulose; tubing (silicone); pad (polyethylene foam); bags (made of polyethylene); drum (high density polyethylene); plastic pallets; drum (cardboard); wire seal—aluminum; plastic coated wire band; and, capsules (vegetable based vegan capsules) (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee will meet June 14, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises
7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 14, 2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, contact Yvette Springer via email.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court) issued a final judgment in
Applicable May 13, 2022.
Michael J. Heaney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475.
In the
In
Based on
Additionally, in the underlying administrative review, the petitioners
In
On September 24, 2021, Commerce filed its
On May 13, 2022, the Court sustained Commerce's
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the
Because Commerce has issued results for Hyundai Steel for periods subsequent to the instant March 7, 2016, through August 31, 2017 period of review,
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for a permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that Mariana Fuentes, Ph.D., Florida State University, 3263 Foley Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32309, has applied in due form for a modification to take green (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before June 27, 2022.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Erin Markin or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject modification is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Mariana Fuentes, Ph.D., Florida State University, 3263 Foley Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32309, proposes to modify Permit No. 19496-04. The permit, originally issued on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 43589, July 5, 2016), and modified on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 34116, July 19, 2018), authorizes researchers to identify important foraging and developmental habitats of sea turtles in Florida. Researchers may capture sea turtles by hand or dip, strike, or tangle nets, tag, biologically sample, photograph, video record, measure, and weigh, prior to release. The permit holder requests authorization to (1) expand the study location in the Florida Big Bend region from Hernando Beach to the southern end of Marco Island, (2) add animal-borne cameras as an instrument for studying Kemp's ridley and green sea turtles, (3) increase the subset of green (from 10 to 50) and Kemp's ridley (from 10 to 30) sea turtles annually that may receive a satellite tag or animal-borne camera, and (4) increase the number of loggerhead (from 10 to 50) sea turtles that may receive a satellite tag or animal-borne camera. The total number of green and Kemp's ridley sea turtles that may be captured, handled, and released annually would not change, 245 and 195, respectively. The total number of loggerhead sea turtles that may be captured, handled, and released annually would change from 55 to 95. The permit is valid through September 30, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs).
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued two IHAs to the City of Seattle (City) to incidentally harass marine mammals during in-water construction activities associated with the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project and Pier 63 Removal Project in Seattle, Washington.
Both IHAs are valid from August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023.
Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On July 21, 2021, NMFS received two requests from the City for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the Pier 63 Removal Project and, separately, the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project on the waterfront in downtown Seattle,
The City submitted an individual IHA application for each project. However, given the City applied for both projects concurrently, the projects' close proximity to each other, and similarities in the planned activities and potential impacts on marine mammals, NMFS is using this single
The City plans to reconstruct Waterfront Park along the Elliott Bay shoreline in Seattle, Washington. When replaced, Waterfront Park will be renamed Pier 58 in reference to the original structure and to avoid confusion with the larger waterfront park promenade that will be reconstructed along Alaskan Way. The project includes vibratory removal of existing in-water piles and vibratory and impact installation of new piles to support the expanded overwater structure (Table 1). A total of 31 existing steel H-piles and timber piles will be removed in whole, wherever possible, by pulling the piles using a vibratory extraction method or clamshell bucket. Once all existing piles have been removed, the City will begin the reconstruction by using a vibratory hammer to install 100 24-inch steel pipe template piles, which will all subsequently be removed using the same vibratory hammer. The City will then install a total of 120 permanent 30-inch steel pipe piles using a vibratory hammer, followed by an impact hammer to “proof” the pilings to their maximum depth and load-bearing capacity. The City does not plan to conduct pile driving with multiple hammers concurrently. Funding for this project has been secured and the City expects Pier 58 reconstruction (including above-water construction that does not have the potential to take marine mammals) to take a little over a year to complete, from August 2022 to December 2023, with a total of 70 days of in-water work expected during the designated window.
The City also plans to remove Pier 63 from the downtown Seattle waterfront. The structural integrity of the pier has deteriorated and the pier has been closed to the public for safety. Removing Pier 63 will leave the nearshore environment open for improved ecosystem function and salmonid migration. The project includes vibratory removal of existing in-water piles; no plans have been made to reconstruct Pier 63, therefore no new piles will be installed (Table 1). The City plans to demolish and remove the existing pier (with a total over-water area of 35,108 square feet), including removal of 900 14-inch timber piles and 8 30-inch steel pipe piles. Pier 63 will be removed during one in-water work season, with a total of 47 days of in-water work expected. If funding for Pier 63 removal is not authorized to allow the planned work to occur during the effective dates of the IHA (August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023), the City will request the IHA be reissued for the following year, as discussed in the
A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue two IHAs to the City was published in the
On March 28, 2022, after NMFS published the notice of proposed IHAs, the City submitted a letter to NMFS, withdrawing their request for take of Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW;
Monitoring results from recent similar in-water construction projects with similar Level B harassment zones, such as the City's Pier 62 Restoration Project (Anchor QEA 2019) indicate that protected species observers (PSOs) were able to detect SRKW and humpback whales outside the Level B harassment zone. In the City's Pier 62 Restoration IHA (83 FR 39709; August 10, 2018), SRKW and humpback whales were first observed when outside of the Level B harassment zone. But because incidental take was authorized, the pile driving equipment was not required to be shut down when these species were detected. If shutdown for the Level B harassment zone had been included in that IHA, the City would have been able to cease pile driving and avoid all take of SRKW and humpback whales. Similarly, IHAs issued to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for in-water pile driving activities at the Seattle Ferry Terminal (Pier 52) since 2017 have authorized incidental take of humpback whales, but have included the requirement to shut down pile driving equipment prior to SRKW entering the Level B harassment zone (
PSOs for the Pier 58 Reconstruction and Pier 63 Removal projects will be stationed with views that extend beyond the Level B harassment zone, providing an opportunity for PSOs to detect SRKW and humpback whales outside of the Level B harassment zone and notify the contractor to cease pile driving activities before Level B harassment occurs. PSOs will also notify the contractor to delay the start of pile driving if these species are present. During emergency in-water demolition work at Waterfront Park between October 2020 and February 2021, PSOs were stationed at the same locations as those designated for the Pier 58 Reconstruction and Pier 63 Removal projects. The PSOs observed SRKW outside the Level B harassment zone (equivalent to the largest Level B harassment zone for the two Pier 58 and Pier 63 IHAs; see Estimated Take section) and were able to coordinate with the contractor to halt pile driving in advance of SRKW entering the harassment zone (Anchor QEA, 2021). Observations of that same group of SRKW were also reported by Orca Network as the pod traveled through Puget Sound.
Contacting, it is most likely that any occurrence of SRKW or humpback whales in Central Puget Sound will be reported to and distributed by Orca Network, and these reports will then be obtained by the PSOs employed for both projects (see below for the required frequency of PSOs obtaining reports from Orca Network) before the animals are within the Level B harassment zones for the Pier 58 and Pier 63 projects.
To obtain more real-time sightings reports of SRKW and humpback whales to even further increase the likelihood that both species will be detected before they enter the Level B harassment zone, the City proposed increasing the frequency that PSOs will contact Orca Network from what was included in the proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 2022). The proposed IHAs included requirements for PSOs to contact Orca Network to obtain sightings reports of marine mammals in central Puget Sound twice each day, once prior to the start of in-water work for the day, and again at the approximate mid-point of construction each day. The City amended this process such that PSOs will now contact Orca Network hourly, which will increase the likelihood that PSOs will be aware of reported sightings of SRKW and humpback whales in central Puget Sound, and be able to detect these species outside the Level B harassment zone and initiate equipment shutdowns to prevent take from occurring.
NMFS has reviewed the new information, in addition to considering the effect of the updated mitigation measures of requiring shutdown if humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project areas and approaching the Level B harassment zone as well as requiring PSOs to contact Orca Network hourly for the most recent location information of SRKW and humpback whales. Although NMFS previously accepted that it was possible for a small number of SRKW to enter the Level B harassment zone undetected and proposed a small amount of Level B harassment for both SRKW and humpback whales, NMFS now concurs with the City's assessment that any take of SRKW and humpback whales is unlikely to occur, and has incorporated the new mitigation measures into the final IHAs. Accordingly, the final IHAs do not authorize incidental take of SRKW or humpback whales.
Sections 3 and 4 of the City's applications summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and authorized for the City's activities, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All values for each managed stock presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2020 SARs (Carretta
As indicated above, all 11 species (with 11 managed stocks) in Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activities to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. The Pacific white-sided dolphin (
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the City's activities, including information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
The effects of underwater noise from the City's construction activities have the potential to result in Level A and Level B harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 2022) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of underwater noise from the City's construction activities on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is incorporated by reference into the final determinations for the IHAs and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 2022).
The Estimated Take section includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are primarily by Level B harassment (in the form of
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the authorized take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
The City's planned activities include the use of continuous (vibratory hammer) and impulsive (impact hammer) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) thresholds are applicable.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project areas is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the planned projects. Marine mammals are expected to be affected by sound generated by the primary components of the project (
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes, and methods for the two piers (Tables 6 and 7).
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for the City's planned activities in the absence of specific modelling. The Level B harassment zones for the City's planned activities are shown in Tables 8 and 9.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as pile installation and removal, the NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the whole duration of the activity, it would incur PTS. The isopleths generated by the User Spreadsheet used the same TL coefficient as the Level B harassment zone calculations (
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the authorized take incidental to the City's pile driving activities. Unless otherwise specified, the term “pile driving” in this section, and all following sections, may refer to either pile installation or removal.
As described in the Changes from the Proposed IHA to Final IHA section of this notice, while take of SRKW and humpback whales was included in the proposed IHAs, the City has reassessed the likelihood of take of these species in consideration of the effectiveness of the required mitigation and monitoring measures. The City determined that by implementing the additional mitigation and monitoring requirements, take of SRKW and humpback whales is unlikely to occur. NMFS has carefully considered the new information and additional mitigation measures, and concurs with the City's assessment. Incidental take of SRKW and humpback whales is no longer anticipated to occur and has not been authorized.
To estimate the number of marine mammals that may be taken incidental to the Pier 58 Reconstruction and Pier 63 Removal projects, the City considered using the ensonified area (see Tables 8 and 9) and density estimates from the U.S. Navy's Marine Species Density Database for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area (U.S. Navy, 2019) but did not consider the resulting take estimates to be realistic (
Gray whales are infrequent visitors to the project areas but are most commonly seen during the winter months. Although no observations of gray whales have been reported during recent pile driving projects along the Seattle waterfront (
Since the City must comply with all mitigation and monitoring measures, including marine mammal monitoring and coordination with Orca Network, these measures will likely be successful in detecting gray whales given their size and visibility, the City must stop work before gray whales could enter the small Level A harassment zones (up to 153.3 m), and gray whales are infrequent visitors to the project areas, it is unlikely that any gray whales will be taken by Level A harassment. No take of gray whales by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
Minke whales are rarely observed in the project areas and none have been reported during monitoring for recent pile driving activities in the area (
Like gray whales, minke whales are considered infrequent visitors to the project areas. As with gray whales, PSOs must coordinate with Orca Network and will likely be alerted to the presence of minke whales in the area, allowing the City to shut down pile driving equipment before a minke whale could enter the Level A harassment zones. Hence, in consideration of the expected
Transient killer whales are frequently seen in central Puget Sound and occasionally within Elliott Bay (Orca Network 2021). Transient killer whales typically travel in small groups. The City estimates that a group of 6 transient killer whales may enter the Level B harassment zone per month. Therefore, the City has requested, and NMFS has authorized, take of 36 transient killer whales by Level B harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction and 18 takes by Level B harassment from Pier 63 removal.
The Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 10 m. PSOs must coordinate with Orca Network and will likely be alerted to the presence of transient killer whales in the area, allowing them to detect the animals and the City to cease pile driving well before killer whales could enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of transient killer whales by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
In 2017 the Orca Network (2017) reported sightings of a bottlenose dolphin in Puget Sound and in Elliott Bay, and WSDOT observed two bottlenose dolphins in one week during monitoring for the Colman Dock Multimodal Project (WSDOT 2018). In addition, a group of 7 bottlenose dolphins were observed in 2017 and were positively identified as part of the California coastal stock (Cascadia Research Collective, 2017). Bottlenose dolphins typically travel in groups of 2 to 15 in coastal waters (Carretta
The Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 10 m. Given the visibility of bottlenose dolphins, the City will be able to cease pile driving before bottlenose dolphins could enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of bottlenose dolphins by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
In June 2011, two long-beaked common dolphins were sighted in South Puget Sound. Sightings continued in 2012, and in 2016-17 (Carretta
The Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans are all less than 10 m. Given the visibility of long-beaked common dolphins, the City will be able to cease pile driving before long-beaked common dolphins could enter the Level A harassment zone. No take of long-beaked common dolphins by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
Recent monitoring data from the Colman Dock Project (Pier 52) in 2017 and 2018 (WSDOT 2019) included observations of 288 harbor porpoises over 99 days of monitoring activity. This equates to approximately 3 porpoises per day.
To account for unobserved animals at the outer extent of the Level B harassment zones, the City estimates up to 6 harbor porpoises may enter the Level B harassment zone per day of pile driving at Pier 58 (70 days) for a total of 420 harbor porpoises. For impact installation of steel piles at Pier 58, the Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans is 183 m. Although the City must implement a shutdown zone of 185 m during this activity (see Mitigation section), due to the cryptic nature and lower detectability of harbor porpoises at large distances, the City anticipates that up to 12 of the harbor porpoises (2 per month) that enter the Level B harassment zone could approach the project site closer and potentially enter the Level A harassment zone undetected during impact installation at Pier 58, which could occur as one group in one day or single animals over two days. These harbor porpoises would be counted as taken by Level A harassment, but would not count toward the City's authorized number of takes of harbor porpoises by Level B harassment because they would have already been counted as Level A harassment takes. The Level A harassment zones for all vibratory pile driving at Pier 58 are all under 30 m. At that distance, the PSOs will be able to detect harbor porpoises and alert the City to cease pile driving activities before harbor porpoises could enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no take of harbor porpoises by Level A harassment is anticipated from vibratory pile driving. In total, the City has requested, and NMFS has authorized, take of 420 harbor porpoises, 408 takes by Level B harassment and 12 takes by Level A harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction.
On all but two days of work at Pier 63, the Level B harassment zone will be well within Elliott Bay. Since the extent of the Level B harassment zone for this project on most days is less than for Pier 58, the City estimates that up to 5 harbor porpoises may be taken by Level B harassment per day during 47 days of pile removal at Pier 63. Therefore, the City requested, and NMFS has authorized, a total of 235 takes of harbor porpoises by Level B harassment from Pier 63 removal. The largest Level A harassment zone from pile removal at Pier 63 is 29 m. At that close range, the PSOs will be able to detect harbor porpoises and the City must shut down pile driving activities before they approach within 29 m. Therefore, no take of harbor porpoises by Level A harassment from pile driving at Pier 63 is requested or authorized.
Dall's porpoises are rarely sighted in the project areas. The City conservatively estimates that up to 12 Dall's porpoises may enter the Level B harassment zone per month, for a total of 72 Dall's porpoises from Pier 58 reconstruction and 36 from Pier 63 removal.
For impact installation of steel piles at Pier 58, the Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans is 183 m. Although the City must implement a shutdown zone of 185 m during this activity, the City anticipates that up to 12 of the Dall's porpoises (2 per month) that enter the Level B harassment zone could approach the project site closer and potentially enter the Level A harassment zone undetected during impact installation at Pier 58, which could occur as one group in one day or a single animal over two days. These Dall's porpoises would be counted as taken by Level A harassment, but would
The largest Level A harassment zone from pile removal at Pier 63 is 29 m. At that close range, the PSOs will be able to detect Dall's porpoises and the City must shut down pile driving activities before they approach within 29 m. Therefore, no take of Dall's porpoises by Level A harassment from pile driving at Pier 63 is requested or authorized. The City requested, and NMFS has authorized, 36 takes of Dall's porpoise by Level B harassment only for activities at Pier 63.
During monitoring for the Pier 62 Project, a maximum of 31 California sea lions were observed in one day, with an average of 6 takes per day (Anchor QEA 2019). To account for unobserved animals at the outer extent of the Level B harassment zones, the City estimates up to 10 California sea lions may be taken by Level B harassment per day. Therefore, the City requested, and NMFS has authorized, 700 takes of California sea lions by Level B harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction and 470 takes by Level B harassment from Pier 63 removal.
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds is 6 m. The City must implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m for all activities. At that close range, the PSOs will be able to detect California sea lions and the City will implement the required shutdown measures before California sea lions could enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no takes of California sea lions by Level A harassment are requested or authorized.
Recent monitoring data from the Colman Dock Project in 2017 and 2018 (WSDOT 2019) reported observations of 54 Steller sea lions over 99 days of monitoring activity, which is roughly equivalent to one Steller sea lion every other day. To account for unobserved animals at the outer extent of the Level B harassment zones, the City estimates two Steller sea lions may be taken by Level B harassment per day. Therefore, the City requested, and NMFS has authorized, 140 takes of Steller sea lions by Level B harassment from Pier 58 reconstruction and 94 takes by Level B harassment from Pier 63 removal.
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds is 6 m. The City must enforce a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m for all activities. At that close range, the PSOs will be able to detect Steller sea lions and the City will implement the required shutdown measures before Steller sea lions could enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no takes of Steller sea lions by Level A harassment are requested or authorized.
Individual elephant seals have occasionally been reported in central Puget Sound (
The largest Level A harassment zone (82 m) occurs during impact installation of steel pipe piles at Pier 58. It is unlikely that northern elephant seals will be found within this zone, and even more unlikely that northern elephant seals will be found within the Level A harassment zones for vibratory pile driving at either pier (less than 12 m for all pile types). However, even if northern elephant seals are encountered in the project areas, at that close range, the PSOs will be able to detect them and the City will implement the required shutdown measures before any northern elephant seals could enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, no take of northern elephant seals by Level A harassment is requested or authorized.
During monitoring for the Pier 62 Project, the maximum number of harbor seals documented as taken by Level B harassment in one day was 54, but the average number documented per day was 5 (Anchor QEA 2019). To account for potentially unobserved animals at the outer extent of the Level B harassment zone during the previous monitoring, the City estimates that 10 harbor seals per day may enter the Level B harassment zone during pile driving work at Pier 58 for a total of 700 harbor seals. In addition, due to their apparent curious nature and previously reported close approaches to pile driving equipment (Anchor QEA 2019), the City estimates that of those 700 harbor seals that could enter the Level B harassment zone, one harbor seal may approach closer and enter the 82-m Level A harassment zone before the animal is detected and activities shut down, and thus be taken by Level A harassment on each day of impact pile installation at Pier 58 (40 days). These harbor seals would be counted as taken by Level A harassment, but would not count toward the City's authorized number of takes of harbor seals by Level B harassment because they would have already been counted as Level A harassment takes. The Level A harassment zones for phocids for all vibratory pile driving at Pier 58 are all under 12 m. At that distance, the PSOs will be able to detect harbor seals and alert the City to cease pile driving activities before harbor seals could enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no take of harbor seals by Level A harassment is anticipated from vibratory pile driving at Pier 58. In total, the City has requested, and NMFS has authorized, 700 takes of harbor seals (660 takes by Level B harassment and 40 takes by Level A harassment) from Pier 58 reconstruction.
On all but two days of work at Pier 63, the Level B harassment zone will be well within Elliott Bay. Since the extent of the Level B harassment zone for this project on most days is less than for Pier 58, the City estimates that up to 6 harbor seals may be taken by Level B harassment per day during the 47 days of pile removal at Pier 63. Therefore, the City requested, and NMFS has authorized, 282 takes of harbor seals by Level B harassment from Pier 63 removal.
The largest Level A harassment zone for the City's planned activities at Pier 63 is 12 m. The City must implement a 15 m shutdown zone to prevent Level A take of phocids for this project (see Mitigation section). At that close range, the PSOs will be able to detect harbor seals and alert the City to cease pile driving activities before harbor seals could enter the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no take of harbor seals by Level A harassment is requested or authorized for work at Pier 63.
NMFS has carefully considered all information and analysis presented by the City as well as all other applicable information and, based on the best available science, concurs that the City's estimates of the types and amounts of take for each species and stock are complete and accurate. NMFS has authorized the numbers and level of take for each species as requested by the City.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
The City has provided in its description of the projects that pile driving will occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. In addition, all in-water construction will be limited to the period between September 1 and February 15.
Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, the City must establish shutdown zones for all activities. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity will occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Pile driving must also not commence until all marine mammals are clear of their respective shutdown zones. Shutdown zones will encompass the Level A harassment zones for all species and
The City must also establish shutdown zones for all marine mammals for which take has not been authorized, including SRKW and humpback whales, and for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met. These zones are equivalent to the Level B harassment zones for each activity (see Tables 12 and 13).
The City must also implement shutdown measures for SRKW and humpback whales. If SRKW or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project areas and are approaching the Level B harassment zone, the City must shut down the pile driving equipment to avoid possible take. If a killer whale approaches the Level B harassment zone during pile driving, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer whale, it must be assumed to be a SRKW and the City must implement the shutdown measure. If a SRKW, an unidentified killer whale, or a humpback whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water pile driving must be suspended until the whale exits the Level B harassment zone, or 15 minutes have elapsed with no sighting of the animal, although with the updated mitigation measures in place it is unlikely that this will occur.
The placement of protected species observers (PSOs) during all pile driving activities (described in the Monitoring and Reporting section) must ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that the entire shutdown zone would not be visible (
PSOs must monitor the entire Level B harassment zones and Level A harassment zones. To the extent practicable, PSOs must monitor the area beyond the Level B harassment zone to enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown zones to the City and thus prepare for a potential cessation of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone.
Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs must observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone is considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zones listed in Tables 12 and 13, pile driving activity must be delayed or halted. If pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity must not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zones or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. When a marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level B harassment take will be recorded. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones must commence. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, and hourly after pile driving has begun, the PSOs must contact the Orca Network to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Local Marine Mammal Research Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government agency personnel in the United States and Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology, and local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer visual sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal species.
Soft-start procedures are used to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors must provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. Soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
A bubble curtain must be employed during impact installation or proofing of steel piles. A noise attenuation device is not required during vibratory pile driving. When a bubble curtain or similar measure is used, it must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column. Any other attenuation measure must provide 100 percent coverage in the water column for the full depth of the pile. The lowest bubble ring must be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the bottom ring must ensure 100 percent mudline contact. Parts of the ring or other objects must not prevent full mudline contact.
Based on our evaluation of the City's proposed mitigation measures, as well as other measures required by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the required mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance for the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project. NMFS also finds that the City's proposed mitigation measures and other measures required by NMFS provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance for the Pier 63 Removal Project.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities must be conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS' standards and in a manner consistent with the following:
• Independent PSOs (
• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and
• Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer is required to have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction.
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
The City must have PSOs stationed around Elliott Bay to monitor during all pile driving activities. During removal of timber and/or steel H-piles at Pier 58
Monitoring must be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, observers must record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and must document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first. All draft and final monitoring reports must be submitted to
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including: (a) How many and what type of piles were driven or removed and the method (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring; and
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance.
For each observation of a marine mammal, the following must be reported:
• Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting;
• Time of sighting;
• Identification of the animal(s) (
• Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the pile being driven or hole being drilled for each sighting;
• Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
• Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.);
• Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports will constitute the final reports. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS' comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. All PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data must be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the City must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (
The report must include the following information:
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
3. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
4. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
5. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving activities from Pier 58 reconstruction and Pier 63 removal have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals and cause auditory
The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. Serious injury or mortality are not anticipated or authorized given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the required mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 3, and to both the Pier 58 and Pier 63 IHAs, given that the anticipated effects of the City's two projects on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are special circumstances for a species or stock (
NMFS has identified key factors which may be employed to assess the level of analysis necessary to conclude whether potential impacts associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible. These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated effect to the species or stock, and the status of the species or stock. The following factors support negligible impact determinations for all affected stocks.
No take by Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized incidental to the Pier 63 Removal Project. For the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project, take by Level A harassment is authorized for three species (harbor seals, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise) to account for the possibility that an animal could enter a Level A harassment zone prior to detection, and remain within that zone for a duration long enough to incur PTS before being observed and the City shutting down pile driving activity. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of PTS,
Additionally, the amount of authorized take by Level A harassment is very low for all marine mammal stocks and species. For the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project, for 10 of 13 stocks, NMFS anticipates and authorizes no Level A harassment take over the duration of the IHA period; for the other three stocks, NMFS authorizes no more than 40 takes by Level A harassment for any species or stock. These low numbers of takes of individuals by Level A harassment (and involving only a small degree of PTS) are not expected to affect the reproductive success or survival of any individuals, much less result in adverse impacts on the species or stock.
As described above, NMFS expects that marine mammals would likely move away from an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of soft start. The City is also required to shut down pile driving activities if marine mammals approach within hearing group-specific zones that encompass the Level A harassment zones (see Tables 12 and 13), further minimizing the likelihood and degree of PTS that would be incurred. Even absent mitigation, no serious injury or mortality from construction activities is anticipated or authorized.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
Additionally, and as noted previously, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. However, since the hearing sensitivity of individuals that incur TTS is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours, it is unlikely that the brief hearing impairment would affect the individual's long-term ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics, and would therefore not likely impact reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammal, let alone adversely affect rates of recruitment or survival of the species or stock.
The projects are also not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected (with no known particular importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Aside from the biologically important area (BIA) for gray whales described below, there are no known areas of importance for other marine mammals, such as feeding or pupping areas, in the project area.
For all species and stocks, and both project areas (Pier 58 and 63), take would occur within a limited, relatively confined area (Elliott Bay within central Puget Sound) of the stocks' ranges. Given the availability of suitable habitat nearby, any displacement of marine mammals from the project areas is not expected to affect marine mammals' fitness, survival, and reproduction due to the limited geographic area that will be affected in comparison to the much larger habitat for marine mammals in Puget Sound. Level A harassment and Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact to the marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat through use of mitigation measures described herein. Some individual marine mammals in the project areas may be present and be subject to repeated exposure to sound from pile driving on multiple days. However, these individuals would likely return to normal behavior during gaps in pile driving activity. The Seattle Waterfront is a busy industrial area and monitoring reports from previous in-water pile driving activities in the area (
Puget Sound is part of a BIA for migrating gray whales (Calambokidis
There is an ongoing UME for gray whales (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section in the notice of proposed IHAs (87 FR 12089; March 3, 2022)). However, we do not expect the authorized takes to exacerbate or compound upon this ongoing UME. As noted previously, no Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is expected or authorized, and any Level B harassment takes of gray whales would most likely be in the form of behavioral disturbance. Preliminary findings from necropsied gray whales that are considered part of the ongoing UME have shown evidence of emaciation, suggesting that impacts to feeding would be of most concern. However, the project areas have not been identified as important for feeding of gray whales. Additionally, the project areas are not considered important for breeding gray whales. Therefore the projects are unlikely to disrupt any critical behaviors (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or authorized for either project;
• No take of any species by Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized for the Pier 63 Removal Project;
• For the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project, Level A harassment is not anticipated or authorized for 8 of the 11 species. For the other 3 species (2 high-frequency cetaceans and 1 phocid pinniped), the amount of Level A harassment is low and would be in the form of a slight degree of PTS in limited low frequency ranges (<2 kHz) which are not the most sensitive primary hearing ranges for these species and would not interfere with conspecific communication or echolocation;
• For both projects, Level B harassment would be in the form of behavioral disturbance, primarily resulting in avoidance of the project areas around where impact or vibratory pile driving is occurring, and some low-level TTS that may limit the detection of acoustic cues for relatively brief amounts of time in relatively confined footprints of the activities;
• Nearby areas of similar habitat value within Puget Sound are available for marine mammals that may temporarily vacate the project areas during construction activities for both projects;
• Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts on their populations from either project;
• The number of anticipated takes by Level B harassment is relatively low for all stocks for both projects;
• The ensonified areas from both projects are very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and will not adversely affect ESA-designated critical habitat, or cause more than minor impacts in any BIAs or any other areas of known biological importance;
• The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat from either project;
• The efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activities on all species and stocks for both projects;
• The enhanced mitigation measures (
• Monitoring reports from similar work in Puget Sound that have documented little to no behavioral effect on individuals of the same species that could be impacted by the specified activities from both projects, suggesting the degree/intensity of behavioral harassment would be minimal.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks. NMFS also finds that the total marine mammal take from the Pier 63 Removal project will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors
The authorized take for each project is below one third of the population for all marine mammal stocks (Tables 10 and 11).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activities (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks for the Pier 58 Reconstruction Project. NMFS also finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks for the Pier 63 Removal Project.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHAs qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued two IHAs to the City, one each for their Pier 58 Reconstruction Project and their Pier 63 Removal Project on the Seattle Waterfront in Seattle, Washington (both effective from August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023), with the previously discussed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements incorporated.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; update.
NMFS announces the public meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) on June 8, 2022. This notice replaces an earlier document in the
The meeting of the PAC will be held via web conference on June 8, 2022, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) (or until business is concluded). Members of the public may submit written comments on meeting topics or materials; comments must be received by June 3, 2022.
The public meeting will be conducted via web conference. For details on how to call in to the web conference or to submit comments, please contact Emily Reynolds, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5039; email:
Participants and public commenters are urged not to provide Personally Identifiable Information (PII) BII or Business Identifiable Information (BII) during this meeting, as any public comments are made publicly available. The audio portion of this meeting may be recorded for the purposes of generating notes of the meeting and participation in the meeting constitutes consent to the audio recording.
Emily Reynolds, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808-725-5039; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email:
This notice replaces a notice published in the
The purpose of the June 8, 2022 meeting is to discuss outcomes of the 2021 regular session of the WCPFC (WCPFC18), U.S. priorities leading up to the 2022 regular session of the WCPFC (WCPFC19) and potential management measures for tunas and other issues of interest.
The web conference is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids were requested to be directed to Emily Reynolds at 808-725-5039 by May 25, 2022.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Charter renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services of the Health Sciences (BoR USUHS).
Jim Freeman, DoD Advisory Committee Management Officer, 703-692-5952.
The BoR USUHS' charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., appendix) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the BoR USUHS' Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at
The BoR USUHS will provide independent advice and recommendations on academic and administrative matters critical to the full accreditation and successful operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (“the University”) and carrying out the Secretary's responsibility to conduct the business of the University.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(b), the BoR USUHS shall consist of 16 members appointed by the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”), as follows: (a) Nine persons outstanding in the fields of health care, higher education administration, or public policy, who shall be appointed from civilian life by the DoD Appointing Authority; (b) the Secretary of Defense, or his or her designee, who shall be an ex officio member; (c) the Director of the Defense Health Agency, who shall be an ex officio member; (d) the Surgeons General of the Uniformed Services, who shall be ex officio members; and (e) the President of the University, who shall be a non-voting, ex officio member.
BoR USUHS members who are not ex officio members shall be appointed by the DoD Appointing Authority pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(b)(1) and (c) for a six-year term of service except that: (a) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term; and, (b) any member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed.
Appointments for BoR USUHS members who are not ex officio members shall be renewed on an annual basis in accordance with DoD policy and procedures. No member, unless approved by the DoD Appointing Authority, may serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time.
BoR USUHS members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. BoR USUHS members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be designated pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee (RGE) members.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(d), the DoD Appointing Authority shall appoint the BoR USUHS Chair for a term of service of one-to-two years, with annual renewal which shall not exceed the member's approved BoR USUHS appointment, in accordance with DoD policy and procedures.
All BoR USUHS members are appointed to exercise their own best judgment on behalf of the DoD, without representing any particular points of view, and to discuss and deliberate in a manner that is free from conflicts of interest.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(e), BoR USUHS members (other than ex officio members) shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate determined by the DoD Appointing Authority, for each day of attendance at the BoR USUHS meetings, in addition to travel and other necessary expenses connected with their official duties on the BoR USUHS, in accordance with the provision of 5 U.S.C. 5703(b), (d) and 5707. RGE members shall only be reimbursed for official BoR USUHS-related travel and per diem.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the BoR USUHS about the BoR USUHS' mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the BoR USUHS. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the BoR USUHS, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs, Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) 84.305B, 84.305S, 84.324A, and 84.324B. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 4040-0001.
The dates when applications are available and the deadlines for transmittal of applications invited under this notice are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice and in the
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
The contact person associated with a particular research competition is listed in the chart at the end of this notice, as well as in the relevant RFA and application package.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The IES National Center for Education Research (NCER) is announcing two competitions—one competition in each of the following areas: Education research training and using longitudinal data to support State education policymaking.
The IES National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) is announcing two competitions—one competition in each of the following areas: Special education research and special education research training.
• Early Career Mentoring Program for Faculty at Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs).
• Methods Training in Data Science for Education Researchers.
NCER will not compete the Education Research (ALN 84.305A), Statistical and Research Methodology in Education (ALN 84.305D), or Systematic Replication in Education Research (ALN 84.305R) grant programs in FY 2023. If funding is available in FY 2023, the Director intends to use the grant slate developed in FY 2022 for the Education Research (ALN 84.305A) and the Systematic Replication in Education Research (ALN 84.305R) grant programs to make new awards to high-quality applications that remain unfunded on this slate.
For all competitions, contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2024 from the list of highly-rated unfunded applications submitted in response to the FY 2023 competition announcement.
1.
For the Early Career Development and Mentoring Program under the Research Training Programs in Special Education (ALN 84.324B), applicants must be an institution of higher education in the United States and its territories.
For the Early Career Mentoring Program under the Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences (ALN 84.305B), applicants must be a minority-serving institution of higher education located in the territorial United States.
For the Methods Training in Data Science for Education Researchers program (ALN 84.305B), applicants must have the ability and capacity to conduct training in data science methods and be located in the territorial United States.
For the Using Longitudinal Data to Support State Education Policymaking (ALN 84.305S) grant program, eligible applications must include the eligible State agency or State postsecondary system responsible for the education issue, program, or policy to be examined. Eligible State agencies include the State education agency (SEA) responsible for the State's K-12 sector as well as State agencies responsible for other specific education sectors such as prekindergarten, career and technical education, postsecondary education, and adult education. In addition, a State postsecondary system may serve as the State agency. State agencies may apply alone, or in conjunction with research organizations such as universities and research firms, and/or with other appropriate organizations (such as other State agencies or local education agencies).
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
5.
6.
1.
For the 84.324A competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the
For the 84.324B competition, peer reviewers for the early career development and mentoring program will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the quality of the career development plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities, and the quality of the dissemination plan. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.
For the 84.305B early career mentoring program competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the quality of the career development plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities, and the quality of the dissemination plan.
For the 84.305B methods training program competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research training plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities, and the quality of the dissemination plan. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.
For the 84.305S competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the applicability and availability of the data to be analyzed, and the quality of the plans to disseminate and use the findings in State decision-making. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.
For all IES competitions, applications must include budgets no higher than the relevant maximum award as set out in the relevant RFA. IES will not make an award exceeding the maximum award amount as set out in the relevant RFA.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, IES also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
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.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
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
5.
6.
In making a continuation award, IES 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 Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2022 for the Open Textbooks Pilot program conducted under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.116T. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the
Kurrinn Abrams, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 2nd floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-1920. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Increasing textbook costs introduce an additional barrier to college access and completion, particularly for low-income students. In recent years, the development of open textbooks and other open educational resources has emerged as a potential solution. In fact, in a study conducted by the Open Textbook Alliance, switching from textbooks to open educational resources nationwide in the ten introductory core-curriculum courses surveyed in the study would save students an estimated $1.5 billion per year on course materials.
In addition to the cost-saving benefits of open resources, there are additional benefits for students and faculty. Open textbooks and open educational resources increase equity because institutions are able to freely distribute these resources and provide students access to high-quality, up-to-date, and relevant content and materials; and access to open resources can empower faculty to customize learning materials to better meet the needs of their students. Open textbooks and open educational resources can further provide students the opportunity to reallocate financial aid money to other important educational resources and necessary costs of attending college.
While open textbooks often are available for general education or introductory courses, the Department seeks to promote degree completion by supporting the development of open textbooks at all levels within an academic program. This program therefore emphasizes expanding the use of existing open textbooks in general education or introductory courses, as well as developing open textbooks for several required courses in one or more high-enrollment majors to ensure that students will benefit from cost savings throughout their programs.
These priorities are:
To meet this priority, an eligible applicant must propose to lead and carry out projects that involve a consortia of institutions, instructors, and subject matter experts, including no less than three IHEs, along with relevant employers, workforce stakeholders (as defined in this notice), and/or trade or professional associations (as defined in this notice). Applicants must explain how the members of the consortium will work together to develop and implement open textbooks that: (a) Reduce the cost of college for large numbers of students through a variety of cost saving measures; and (b) contain instructional content and ancillary instructional materials that align student learning objectives with the skills or knowledge required by large numbers of students (at a given institution or nationally), or in the case of a career and technical postsecondary program, meet industry standards in in-demand industry sectors or in-demand occupations (as defined in this notice).
To meet this priority, an applicant must identify the gaps in the open textbook marketplace in courses that are part of a degree-granting program that it seeks to address and propose how to close such gaps. An applicant must propose a comprehensive plan to: (a) Identify and assess existing open educational resources in the proposed subject area before creating new ones, such as by identifying any existing open textbooks that could potentially be used as models for the design of the project or ancillary learning resources that would support the development of courses that use open textbooks; (b) focus on the creation and expansion of education and training materials that can be scaled, within and beyond the participating consortium members, to reach a broad range of students participating in high-enrollment courses or preparing for in-demand industry sectors or in-demand occupations; (c) create and disseminate protocols to review any open textbooks created or adapted through the project for accuracy, rigor, and accessibility for students with disabilities; (d) disseminate information about the results of the project to other IHEs, including promoting the adoption of any open textbooks created or adapted through the project, or adopting open standard protocols and processes that support the interoperability for any digital assets created; (e) include professional development to build capacity of faculty, instructors, and other staff to adapt and use open textbooks; and (f) describe the courses for which open textbooks and ancillary materials are being developed.
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to build upon existing open textbook materials and/or develop new open textbooks for high-enrollment courses or high-enrollment programs in order to achieve the highest level of savings for students.
Additionally, this priority requires the applicant to include plans for: (a) Promoting and tracking the use of open textbooks in postsecondary courses across participating members of the consortium, including an estimate of the projected direct cost savings for students that will be reported during the annual performance review; (b) monitoring the impact of open textbooks on instruction, learning outcomes, course outcomes, and educational costs; (c) investigating and disseminating evidence-based practices associated with using open textbooks that improve student outcomes; and (d) updating the open textbooks beyond the funded period.
This priority is:
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project that focuses on improving instruction and student learning outcomes by integrating technology-based strategies, such as personalized learning, and providing support to faculty, instructors, and other staff who are delivering courses using these techniques. The project must enable students to tailor and monitor their own learning and/or allow instructors to monitor the individual performance of each student in the classes or courses for which the applicant proposes to develop open textbooks. In addition, online and technology-enabled content and courses developed under this project must incorporate the principles of universal design in order to ensure that they are readily accessible by all students, including students with disabilities. The openly licensed resources that are developed should support traditional, text-based materials, including through such tools as adaptive learning modules, digital simulations, and tools to assist student engagement.
This priority is:
An application from a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) (as defined in this notice) or community college (as defined in this notice) that leads the activities of the consortium and serves as the fiscal agent; or an application from a consortium in which an MSI or community college is a member of the consortium but not the lead applicant.
For the purpose of this priority, the definition of “minority-serving institution” is from the Supplemental Priorities and section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. The definition of “community college” is from section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C 1058(f)). These definitions apply to this competition for FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
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 for this competition.
1.
(a) Lead the activities of a consortium that is comprised of at least:
(i) Three IHEs as defined in section 101 of the HEA;
(ii) An educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert (which may include such experts that are employed by one or more of the consortium institutions); and
(iii) An advisory group of at least three employers, workforce organizations, or sector partners; and
(b) Have demonstrated experience in the development and implementation of open educational resources.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1′ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a readable 12-point font such as Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended 60-page limit applies only to the application narrative and does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. We recommend that any application addressing the competitive preference priority include no more than three additional pages for the priority, if the priority is addressed.
6.
1.
Points awarded under the competitive preference priority are in addition to any points an applicant earns for all of the selection criteria in this notice. The maximum score that an application may receive under the competitive preference priority and the selection criteria is 105. The selection criteria are as follows:
a.
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population (up to 10 points).
(2) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings (up to 10 points).
b.
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (up to 4 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 (up to 4 points).
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance (up to 4 points).
(4) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition (up to 4 points).
c.
The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. 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. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards (up to 5 points).
(2) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services (up to 5 points).
(3) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services (up to 5 points).
d.
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. 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. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator (up to 5 points).
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 4 points).
e.
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project (up to 10 points).
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives,
f.
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(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 (up to 5 points).
(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project (up to 5 points).
g.
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (up to 5 points).
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible (up to 5 points).
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 or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of external reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score all eligible applications using the selection criteria and the competitive preference priority, if applicable, provided in this notice. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer review score. The Department may use more than one tier of reviews in evaluating grantees. The Department will prepare a rank order of applications based solely on the evaluation of their quality according to the selection criteria and competitive preference priority points.
In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score in the rank order listing, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the Department will apply the following procedure to determine which application or applications will receive an award:
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.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115—232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we will 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 number of students who enrolled in courses that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
b. The number of students who completed courses that used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
c. The failure rate or withdrawal rate in courses that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials compared with equivalent courses that used commercial textbooks;
d. The average grade of students who completed a course that used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant compared with the equivalent average grade of students who used commercial textbooks;
e. The number of faculty/instructors that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
f. The number of institutions within the consortium, and the number of institutions outside of the consortium, that adopted the open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
g. The number of courses among consortium members that adopted the open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant, compared to those that continued to use commercial textbooks;
h. The number of faculty/instructors or institutions that use tools for revising and remixing open educational resources content to facilitate adoption of open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
i. The average cost savings per student; and
j. The total cost savings for students who used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant compared to students in the same course of study who used traditional textbooks.
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
Under Section 319 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825q-1, the primary mission of the Commission's Office of Public Participation (“OPP”) is to coordinate assistance to the public with respect to authorities exercised by the Commission. The Director shall also coordinate assistance available to persons intervening or participating or proposing to intervene or participate in proceedings before the Commission.
In furtherance of this mission, each employee of the Office of Public Participation (OPP) is being designated as a non-decisional employee of the
Given the non-decisional status of each OPP employee as stated herein, communications between employees of OPP and parties or members of the public as to the merits of a contested on-the-record proceeding will not constitute
This designation will remain in effect until withdrawn or modified by a subsequent notice.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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.
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.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene 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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition to object to state operating permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order, dated April 27, 2022, granting in part and denying in part the petition
Copies of the Order, the petition, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4; Air and Radiation Division; 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Order is also available electronically at the following address:
Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, Air Planning Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9115. Mr. Hofmeister can also be reached via electronic mail at
The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, a petition for judicial review of those parts of the Order that deny issues in the petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice is published in the
Petitioner submitted a petition requesting that EPA object to the proposed CAA title V operating permit no. 503-8010 issued by ADEM to the UOP Mobile Plant. Petitioner claims: The statement of basis lacks substantive information for adequate public review; ADEM failed to demonstrate that monitoring requirements are consistent with respect to applicable requirements; ADEM failed to demonstrate the source is entitled to a permit shield; the permit fails to include underlying citations of authority with respect to applicable permit conditions; the permit includes synthetic minor limits that are not practically enforceable; and ADEM failed to adequately respond to Petitioner's comments.
On April 27, 2022, the Administrator issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the petition. The Order explains EPA's bases for granting in part and denying in part the petition.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Methylene Chloride; Regulation of Paint and Coating Removal for Consumer Use under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(a),” (EPA ICR Number 2556.03, OMB Control Number 2070-0204) 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 May 31, 2022. Public comment were previously requested via the
Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2022.
Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0303, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Katherine Sleasman, Regulatory Support Branch (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1204; 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 online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (EPA ICR Number 1954.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0457), 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 May 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 27, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0098, to EPA online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; 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 online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources (EPA ICR Number 2454.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0684), 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 May 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 27, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0126, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; 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 online at
The adjustment decrease is offset by corrections to burden estimates for resin sampling, PRD electronic monitor review, gasholders, storage vessels, and ongoing inspections of bypasses and to the number of occurrences per year for recordkeeping requirements to more accurately reflect facility activities as shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost—NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD) (Renewal).
There is a decrease in the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs as calculated in section 6(b)(iii) compared
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans (EPA ICR Number 1365.12, OMB Control Number 2070-0091), 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 May 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 27, 2022.
Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0319, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Katherine Sleasman, Regulatory Support Branch (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1204; 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 online at
This ICR estimates the paperwork burden for LEAs to inspect for asbestos and update management plans to protect all school building occupants from exposure to asbestos. This collection also estimates the paperwork burden for the accreditation of persons who inspect for asbestos, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions and the paperwork burden associated with state accreditation programs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Green Power Partnership and Combined Heat and Power Partnership (EPA ICR Number 2173.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0578) 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 May 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 27, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0501, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Rebecca Taylor, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, MC 6202A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-5211; 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 online at
EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect information from organizations participating in the GPP, CHPP, and other ESIB programs. Organizations that join these programs voluntarily agree to the following respective actions: (1) Designating a GPP or CHPP liaison and filling out a Partnership Agreement; (2) for the CHPP, information from stakeholders that download Partnership tools and for the GPP, (3), reporting to EPA, on an annual basis, their progress toward their green power commitment. EPA uses the data obtained from its Partners to assess the success of these programs in achieving their national energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Partners are organizational entities that have volunteered to participate in either Partnership program.
EPA needs to collect the information in the Partnership Agreements to formally establish participation in the GPP or CHPP program and to obtain general information about new Partners. Additional information collected through information forms is needed to allow EPA to track Partner progress toward meeting their GPP commitments, to enable GPP to facilitate and encourage green power use, to assess whether actions are worthy of recognition, and to determine progress in meeting GPP's national energy and GHG reduction goals. EPA uses the information submitted in additional forms to monitor the progress of current participation and projects and identify new opportunities. EPA also uses the data submitted by GPP and CHPP Partners to prepare reports on GPP progress and determine the GHG reductions achieved by the program. General information on the Partners, green power, and CHP is also provided on the respective websites, making it available to other Partners and the public.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability and public hearing.
Pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 is requesting public comments on its 2022 Proposed Determination to prohibit and restrict the use of certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli River (SFK), North Fork Koktuli River (NFK), and Upper Talarik Creek (UTC) watersheds as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit, a copper-, gold-, and molybdenum-bearing ore body located in Southwest, Alaska. EPA Region 10 also is announcing public hearings on this proposed determination.
Submit comments on the proposed determination on or before July 5, 2022. See PUBLIC HEARING section below for public hearing dates and related information.
II. How to Submit Comments to the Docket at
Additional hearing details and any changes to the schedule are available at
Registration is required to participate in the public hearings. Please visit
Members of the public can also sign up to make a comment at the venue on the day of the meeting. The following information will be requested for each commenter: First name, last name, organization and title (if applicable), city, state, email address, and phone number. Tribal elders and elected officials will be invited to comment first. The facilitator will then use a random number system to select individuals who signed up to determine speaking order. Audio-visual equipment will not be provided.
To maximize the number of individuals who are able to speak at the hearing, oral statements may be limited to three minutes per person. EPA encourages commenters to provide the agency with a copy of their oral testimony electronically by emailing it to
EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but there will be no cross examination of any hearing participant.
EPA Region 10 will not respond to questions/comments during the hearing. EPA Region 10 will consider the oral and written statements received at the public hearings and other written comments submitted pursuant to the instructions set forth in the section of this public notice entitled: How to Submit Comments to the Docket at
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at
For information on the public comment period, contact the Water Docket; telephone: (202) 566-2426 or email:
EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. The CWA, the objective of which is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a), is essential to EPA's mission and establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. To advance this overall objective, Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person into waters of the United States except as authorized by specific provisions of the Act, including a permit issued pursuant to Sections 402 or 404, 33 U.S.C. 1342; 33 U.S.C. 1344. Section 404(a) of the CWA authorizes the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. 33 U.S.C. 1344(a). Section 404(c) of the CWA authorizes EPA to prohibit the specification (including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a disposal site, and to deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal site, “whenever” it determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. 33 U.S.C. 1344(c). EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 231 govern the Agency's exercise of its CWA Section 404(c) authority.
In July 2014, after careful consideration of available information, including the findings of EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and consultation with PLP and the State of Alaska, EPA Region 10 published a Proposed Determination under Section 404(c) of the CWA to restrict the use of certain waters in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds as disposal sites for dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit (2014 Proposed Determination) for public comment.
On November 25, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, in litigation brought by PLP, issued a preliminary injunction against EPA that halted EPA Region 10's CWA Section 404(c) review process until the case was resolved. Order Granting Preliminary Injunction at 1-2,
The District Court's vacatur of EPA's 2019 decision to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination had the effect of reinstating the 2014 Proposed Determination and reinitiating EPA's CWA Section 404(c) review process. The next step in the CWA Section 404(c) review process required the Region 10 Regional Administrator to decide whether to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination or prepare a recommended determination within 30 days. On November 23, 2021, EPA Region 10 published in the
The Pebble deposit is a large, low-grade copper-, gold-, and molybdenum-bearing ore body deposit located at the headwaters of the pristine Bristol Bay watershed that underlies portions of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds. The SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds drain to two of the largest rivers in the Bristol Bay watershed, the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers.
In December 2017, the PLP submitted a CWA Section 404 permit application to USACE to develop a mine at the Pebble deposit that triggered the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In response to the CWA Section 404 permit review and NEPA processes, PLP submitted a revised permit application to USACE in June 2020 (
On July 24, 2020, USACE published a Notice of Availability for the Final EIS (FEIS) in the
The Bristol Bay watershed is an area of unparalleled ecological value,
EPA Region 10 has considered the information that has become available since EPA issued the 2014 Proposed Determination, including the more than 670,000 public comments EPA received on the 2014 Proposed Determination; technical information contained in PLP's CWA Section 404 permit application and updated mine plan; analysis developed during the NEPA process and contained in USACE's FEIS and its permit denial; as well as new and potentially relevant science and technical information produced through other contemporaneous efforts. As a result of its review, EPA Region 10 has determined that the appropriate next step in this CWA Section 404(c) review process is to revise the 2014 Proposed Determination.
Construction and routine operation of the mine proposed in the 2020 Mine Plan would result in discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including streams, wetlands, lakes, and ponds overlying the Pebble deposit and within adjacent watersheds. The direct and certain secondary effects of such discharges would result in the total loss of aquatic habitats important to anadromous fishes. These losses are the result of the construction and routine operation of the various components of the mine site, including the open pit, bulk tailings storage facility, pyritic tailings storage facility, power plant, water management ponds, water treatment plants, milling/processing facilities, and supporting infrastructure. According to the FEIS and ROD, discharges of dredged or fill material to construct and operate the mine site proposed in the 2020 Mine Plan would result in the total loss of approximately 99.7 miles (160.5 km) of stream habitat, representing approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 km) of streams with documented anadromous fish occurrence and 91.2 miles (146.8 km) of additional stream habitat. Such discharges of dredged or fill material would also result in the total loss of approximately 2,113 acres (8.6 km
Additional secondary effects of the proposed discharges of dredged or fill material at the mine site would degrade anadromous fishery areas downstream of the mine site. Specifically, the stream, wetland, and other aquatic resource losses from the footprint of the 2020 Mine Plan would reverberate downstream, depriving downstream anadromous fish habitats of nutrients, groundwater inputs, and other ecological subsidies from lost upstream aquatic resources. Further, streamflow alterations from water capture, withdrawal, storage, treatment, or release at the mine site are another secondary effect of the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the construction and routine operation of the 2020 Mine Plan. Such streamflow alterations would adversely impact at least 29 miles (46.7 km) of anadromous fish streams downstream of the mine site due to greater than 20 percent changes in average monthly streamflows. These streamflow alterations would result in major changes in ecosystem structure and function and would reduce both the extent and quality of anadromous fish habitat downstream of the mine. All instances of complete loss of aquatic habitat and most impairment to fish habitat function would be permanent.
EPA Region 10 believes that the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit within the mine site footprint for the 2020 Mine Plan could result in unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in the SFK and NFK watersheds due to losses of documented anadromous fish habitat and degradation of downstream anadromous fish habitat.
Based on the same record, including information about the pristine condition and productivity of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds and the documented anadromous fish habitat throughout the watersheds, EPA Region 10 has reason to believe that discharges of dredged or fill material for the construction and routine operation of a mine at the Pebble deposit anywhere in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds could result in unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in these watersheds if the effects of such discharges are similar or greater in nature and magnitude to the adverse effects of the 2020 Mine Plan.
Accordingly, consistent with 40 CFR 231.3(a)(2), EPA Region 10 is providing public notice of and requesting public comment on the 2022 Proposed Determination to prohibit and restrict the use of certain waters in the NFK, SFK, and UTC watersheds for disposal of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit. The Defined Area for Prohibition is the mine site footprint for the 2020 Mine Plan. The Defined Area for Restriction encompasses certain headwaters of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds where discharges associated with mining the Pebble deposit are likely.
EPA Region 10 is soliciting comments on all matters and issues discussed in the 2022 Proposed Determination. Please see the section entitled
Any interested persons may submit written comments on the proposed determination. All relevant data, studies, or informal observations are appropriate. The Regional Administrator will fully consider all such comments as she decides whether to withdraw the proposed determination or forward to EPA Headquarters a recommended determination to prohibit/restrict the use of certain waters in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Thursday June 9, 2022 via conference call and available to the public via the internet at
Thursday June 9, 2022.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Michael Ha, Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Division 202-418-2099;
At the June 9th meeting, the TAC consider and advise the Commission on topics such as 6G, artificial intelligence, advanced spectrum sharing technologies, and emerging wireless technologies, including new tools to restore internet access during shutdowns and other disruptions. This agenda may be modified at the discretion of the TAC Chair and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
Meetings are broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), invites the public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection request, Arbitrator's Report and Fee Statement, FMCS Form R-19. This information collection request was previously approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) but has expired. FMCS is requesting a reinstatement without change. The Arbitrator's Report and Fee Statement, FMCS Form R-19, allows FMCS to comply with its statutory obligation to make governmental facilities available for voluntary arbitration. To carry out this policy, FMCS has issued regulations which provide for the operation and maintenance of a roster of professional arbitrators. The FMCS Form R-19, which arbitrators file with the Agency following each decision rendered, allows FMCS to monitor the work of the arbitrator and to collect arbitration information, such as median arbitrator fees and days spent on each case, for the Agency's annual report.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Arbitrator's Report and Fee Statement (FMCS Form R-19), through one of the following methods:
•
•
Arthur Pearlstein, 202-606-8103,
Copies of the agency form are available here. Paper copies are available from the Office of Arbitration Services by emailing Arthur Pearlstein at the email address above. Please ask for the Arbitrator's Report and Fee Statement (FMCS Form R-19).
FMCS solicits comments to:
i. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
ii. Enhance the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information.
iii. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
iv. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology.
This information was previously published in the
The official records are electronic records.
Labor-Management Relations.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).
30-day notice and request for comments.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection request, Arbitrator's Personal Data Questionnaire, (FMCS Form R-22). This information collection request was previously approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) but has expired. FMCS is requesting a reinstatement without change. The Arbitrator's Personal Data Questionnaire, (FMCS Form R-22), allows FMCS to comply with its statutory obligation to make governmental facilities available for voluntary arbitration. To carry out this policy, FMCS has issued regulations which provide for the operation and maintenance of a roster of professional arbitrators. The arbitrators are private citizens, not employees of FMCS, and are paid by the parties for hearing and deciding the issues submitted under a collective bargaining agreement and in other circumstances. Applicants for the roster submit an Arbitrator's Personal Data Questionnaire (FMCS Form R-22) which is used by FMCS to evaluate their qualifications. This allows FMCS to restrict its roster to qualified individuals only.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Arbitrator's Personal Data Questionnaire (FMCS Form R-22), through one of the following methods:
•
•
Arthur Pearlstein, 202-606-8103,
Copies of the agency form are available here. Paper copies are available from the Office of Arbitration Services by emailing Arthur Pearlstein at the email address above. Please ask for the Arbitrator's Personal Data Questionnaire (FMCS Form R-22).
FMCS solicits comments to:
i. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
ii. Enhance the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information.
iii. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
iv. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology.
This information was previously published in the
The official records are electronic records.
Labor-Management Relations.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than June 9, 2022.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Airline and Vessel and Traveler Information Collection (42 CFR part 71.4(d))” 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 November 22, 2021] to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment 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. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Airline and Vessel and Traveler Information Collection (42 CFR part 71.4(d)) (OMB Control No. 0920-1354, Exp. 5/31/2022)—Extension—National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a component of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has the regulatory authority to collect contact information from airlines under 42 CFR 71. CDC exercises this authority to ensure that public health agencies across the United States can provide appropriate public health follow-up to travelers who may be ill or exposed to a communicable disease.
CDC announces the requirement for all airlines and operators to collect and/or maintain passenger and crew contact information (designated information), and for passengers to provide such
CDC seeks an Extension for Airline and Vessel and Traveler Information Collection (42 CFR part 71.4(d)) (OMB Control No. 0920-1354) and requests approval for an estimated 6,191,023 burden hours.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human 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 June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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:
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.
HHS will also use this data to adjust the payment transfer formula for risk associated with high-cost enrollees. State regulators can use the reporting requirements outlined in this collection to request a reduction to the statewide average premium factor of the risk adjustment transfer formula, beginning for the 2019 benefit year, and thereby avoid having to establish their own programs. Issuers and providers can use the alternative reporting requirements for mental and behavioral health records described herein to comply with State privacy laws.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human 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 July 25, 2022.
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
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.
Consistent with 42 CFR 405.1205 for Original Medicare and 422.620 for Medicare health plans, hospitals must provide the initial IM within 2 calendar days of admission. A follow-up copy of the signed IM is given no more than 2 calendar days before discharge. The follow-up copy is not required if the first IM is provided within 2 calendar days of discharge. In accordance with 42 CFR 405.1206 for Original Medicare and 422.622 for Medicare health plans, if a beneficiary/enrollee appeals the discharge decision, the beneficiary/enrollee and the QIO must receive a detailed explanation of the reason's services should end. This detailed explanation is provided to the beneficiary/enrollee using the DND, the second notice included in this renewal package.
2.
The MOON is a standardized notice delivered to persons entitled to Medicare benefits under Title XVIII of the Act who receive more than 24 hours of observation services, informing them that their hospital stay is outpatient and not inpatient, and the implications of being an outpatient. This information collection applies to beneficiaries in Original Medicare and enrollees in Medicare health plans.
3.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recognizes the longstanding role that agents/brokers have played in connecting individuals and small businesses with health insurance products. Section 1312(e) of the Affordable Care Act and 45 CFR 155.220(a)(1) expands the role of agents/brokers by permitting them to enroll qualified individuals or small employers/employees in qualified health plans (QHPs) through the Exchanges, and assist individuals in applying for Advance Premium Tax Credits (APTCs) and Cost Sharing Reductions (CSRs). To participate as facilitators to enrollment, agents/brokers must register with the FFE, complete a training course covering eligibility and enrollment criteria for assisting in QHP enrollment, and sign agreements that formalize their understanding and commitment to adhere to the rules of the program. This requirement is specific to the FFE and does not automatically apply to State-based Exchanges (SBEs). This ICR serves as the formal request for renewal of the existing data collection.
4.
5.
CMS will use the data collections from participating issuers and third party administrators to verify the total dollar amount for such payments for contraceptive services provided under this accommodation for the purpose of determining a participating issuer's user fee adjustment. The attestation that the payments for contraceptive services were made in compliance with 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(b)(2) or 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(b)(2) will help ensure that the user fee adjustment is being utilized to provide contraceptive services for the self-insured plans in accordance with the previously noted accommodation.
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), proposes survey and focus group data collection activities for the Sexual Risk Avoidance Education National Evaluation (SRAENE) Nationwide Study (NWS) of the National Descriptive Study.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
The study is being undertaken by ACF and its contractor Mathematica. The study research questions driving the need for data collection are as follows:
1. What are grant recipients' and providers' experiences with delivering SRAE curricular content? What are youth's experiences with receiving the SRAE curricular content?
2. How did grant recipients and providers interpret, understand, and address the A to F topics in the SRAE legislation?
3. Are some features of implementation more strongly associated with youth outcomes than others?
4. What provider characteristics are associated with a greater number of youth served and with youth outcomes?
To support these efforts, ACF proposes the following data collection activities: (1) A web-based survey of all grant recipient Directors who are not also providers, (2) a web-based survey of all SRAE program providers, (3) a web-based survey of all SRAE program facilitators, and (4) in-person (or virtual if necessary) focus groups with youth recipients of SRAE programming across five geographic regions of the United States.
See
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing that it is withdrawing approval of the indications for relapsed follicular lymphoma and relapsed small lymphocytic lymphoma for ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablets, approved under new drug application (NDA) 205858, held by Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Dr., Foster City, CA 94404 (Gilead). Gilead voluntarily requested that the Agency withdraw approval of these indications and waived its opportunity for a hearing.
Approval is withdrawn as of May 26, 2022.
Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3137,
On July 23, 2014, FDA approved NDA 205858 for ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablets for the treatment of patients with relapsed follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in patients who have received at least two prior systemic therapies (the follicular lymphoma indication). On that same day, FDA also approved NDA 205858 for ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablets for the treatment of patients with relapsed small lymphocytic lymphoma in patients who have received at least two prior systemic therapies (the SLL indication). FDA approved both the follicular lymphoma indication and the SLL indication under the Agency's accelerated approval regulations, 21 CFR part 314, subpart H. As a condition of accelerated approval of ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablets for the follicular lymphoma indication and the SLL indication, the applicant was required to conduct postmarketing trials to verify the clinical benefit of idelalisib for the follicular lymphoma and SLL indications.
On November 22, 2021, FDA met with Gilead to discuss the status of ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablet's accelerated approval for the follicular lymphoma indication and the SLL indication, including the continued need for postmarketing trials intended to verify clinical benefit in follicular lymphoma and small lymphocytic lymphoma. FDA raised withdrawal of approval during this discussion, explaining its intent to consult the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) on whether FDA should pursue withdrawal of the follicular lymphoma indication and the SLL indication. Subsequently, on December 17, 2021, following further communication with Gilead, FDA advised Gilead that voluntary withdrawal of approval for these indications would be appropriate under § 314.150(d) (21 CFR 314.150(d)). On January 10, 2022, Gilead submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of the follicular lymphoma indication and the SLL indication for ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablets and waiving its opportunity for a hearing. Gilead subsequently clarified, on February 23, 2022, that they were requesting the Agency withdraw approval of the follicular lymphoma indication and the SLL indication pursuant to § 314.150(d).
Therefore, under § 314.150(d), approvals of the follicular lymphoma indication and the SLL indication for ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablets are withdrawn as of May 26, 2022. Withdrawal of approval of these indications does not affect any other approved indication for ZYDELIG (idelalisib) Tablets.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review cycle.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
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.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-0361.
Section 501(h) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa) directs the Assistant Secretary of SAMHSA to establish such peer review groups as are needed to carry out the requirements of Title V of the PHS Act. SAMHSA administers a large discretionary grants program under authorization of Title V, and, for many years, SAMHSA has funded grants to provide prevention and treatment services related to substance abuse and mental health.
In support of its grant peer review efforts, SAMHSA desires to continue to expand the number and types of reviewers it uses on these grant review committees. To accomplish that end, SAMHSA has determined that it is important to proactively seek the inclusion of new and qualified representatives on its peer review groups. Accordingly, SAMHSA has developed an application form for use by individuals who wish to apply to serve as peer reviewers.
The application form has been developed to capture the essential information about the individual applicants. The most consistent method to accomplish this is through completion of a standard form by all interested persons which captures information about knowledge, education, and experience in a consistent manner from all interested applicants. SAMHSA will use the information provided on the form to identify appropriate peer grant reviewers. Depending on their experience and qualifications, applicants may be invited to serve as grant reviewers.
The following changes are proposed in the form:
The following table shows the annual response burden estimate.
Send comments to Carlos Graham, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-A, Rockville, Maryland 20857,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of September 15, 2022 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 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 new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, 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
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and 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).
Comments are to be submitted on or before August 24, 2022.
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-2233, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and 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).
Comments are to be submitted on or before August 24, 2022.
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-2234, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after
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, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of September 1, 2022 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
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 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,
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 Office of Partnership and Engagement (OPE), The Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of initial projects for the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro N. Mayorkas, directed his Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) to establish a subcommittee entitled Assessment of Disinformation Best Practices and Safeguards on May 18, 2022. The Disinformation Best Practices and Safeguards subcommittee will provide findings and recommendations to the HSAC on how the Department can most effectively and appropriately address disinformation that poses a threat to the homeland, while increasing transparency and protecting free speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy.
The Secretary also directed the HSAC to establish a subcommittee entitled Assessment of Customer Experience and Service Delivery on May 18, 2022. The Customer Experience and Service Delivery subcommittee will provide findings and recommendations to the HSAC on how the Department can improve its customer experience and service delivery mechanisms to meet customer and community needs, including by leveraging technology and other innovations and increasing efficiency.
This notice is not a solicitation for membership.
Michael J. Miron, Deputy Executive Director of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, The Office of Partnership and Engagement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security at 202-282-8000 or
The HSAC provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, and actionable advice and recommendations for the consideration of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The HSAC is comprised of leaders in local law enforcement, first responders, public health, State, local and tribal government, national policy, the private sector, and academia.
The subcommittee's assessment will include, but need not be limited to, the following:
1. Recommendations for how the Department can most effectively and appropriately address disinformation that poses a threat to the homeland, while protecting free speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy, including through proposed unified principles to guide the Department's disinformation-related work; and,
2. Recommendations for how to achieve greater transparency across our disinformation-related work, including to increase trust with the public and other key stakeholders, in a way that could serve as a model for achieving transparency in other mission areas.
DHS interacts with the public on a daily basis more than any other federal agency. It is among our top priorities to ensure we are effectively meeting the needs of the diverse communities we serve. To this end, we are focused on facilitating lawful trade and travel more efficiently, modernizing our ports of entry and border processing, increasing equity in disaster assistance programs,
The assessment of our customer experience and service delivery mechanisms will include, but need not be limited to, the following:
1. Recommendations for how to better design the Department's delivery of services to meet customer and community needs, including by (a) leveraging technology and other innovations to reduce burdens on the public, and (b) increasing the adoption of best practices to maximize efficiency and improve the customer experience across relevant mission areas;
2. Recommendations for how the Department can measure customer experience and service delivery effectiveness, establish targets for improvement, and ensure that our programs, policies, and operations improve equity and protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties; and,
3. Recommendations for how the Department can better exchange with the private sector the knowledge, talent, and best practices around customer experience and service delivery, such as through executives-in-residence and public sector leave programs.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire in trust 32.06 acres, more or less, of land known as the Keecak Site in the City of Beloit, Rock County, Wisconsin, (Site) for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, (Tribe) for gaming and other purposes.
This final determination was made on May 12, 2022.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Mailstop 3543, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 219-4066,
On the date listed in the
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, will immediately acquire title to Site in the name of the United States of America in trust for Tribe upon fulfillment of all Departmental requirements. The 32.06 acres, more or less, are described as follows:
Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW
Commencing at a Rock County Aluminum Monument marking the West
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file a plat of survey 30 calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne,
Protests must be received by the BLM prior to the scheduled date of official filing by June 27, 2022.
You may submit written protests to the Wyoming State Director at WY926, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009.
Sonja S. Sparks, BLM Wyoming Chief Cadastral Surveyor, by telephone at (307) 775-6225 or by email at
The plat of survey of the following described land is scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
A person or party who wishes to protest the plat of survey identified in this notice must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Wyoming State Director at the above address. Any notice of protest received after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plat and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $0.15 per page of field notes. Requests can be made to
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before May 14, 2022, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by June 10, 2022.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before May 14, 2022. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
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.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resources:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”), Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), ONRR is proposing to renew an information collection. Through this Information Collection Request (“ICR”), ONRR seeks renewed authority to collect information necessary to (1) verify proper reporting and payment of royalties and other amounts due pursuant to Federal oil and gas leases; (2) determine requests for prepayment or accounting and auditing relief for certain marginal properties; and (3) determine requests to exceed transportation and processing allowance limits. ONRR uses form ONRR-4393 (Request to Exceed Regulatory Allowance Limitation) as part of these information collection requirements.
You must submit your written comments on or before July 25, 2022.
All comment submissions must (1) reference “OMB Control Number 1012-0005” in the subject line; (2) be sent to ONRR before the close of the comment period listed under
•
•
To request additional information about this ICR, please contact Peter Christnacht, Royalty Valuation, ONRR, by email at
Pursuant to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
As part of ONRR's continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, ONRR is inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and
ONRR is especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of ONRR's estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. ONRR will include or summarize each comment in its request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask ONRR in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, ONRR cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Some information collected under parts 1202 and 1206 is submitted on form ONRR-2014 (Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance). This ICR does not include burden hours for submitting information on form ONRR-2014 because those burden hours are addressed in ONRR's ICR 1012-0004 (Royalty and Production Reporting).
This ICR does not include burden hours for submitting information on form ONRR-4393 for Indian leases because those burden hours are addressed in ONRR's ICR 1012-0002 (Indian Oil and Gas Valuation).
For this renewal cycle, the burden hours have decreased 105 hours in part 1206 due to the Consolidated Federal and Indian Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform Final Reform Rule published on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43337), and effective January 1, 2017.
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.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on December 1, 2021 (86 FR 68265) and determined on March 7, 2022 that it would conduct expedited reviews (87 FR 22577, April 15, 2022). The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on May 20, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5326 (May 2022), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection (IC) is also being published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 25, 2022.
If you have additional comments regarding the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, contact: Jennifer Scott, Firearms Industry Programs Branch, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division, by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 25, 2022.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Natalie N. Goff, Management and Program Analyst, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section, Module A-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, phone 304-625-7468, or email
This process is conducted in accordance with
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
It is estimated that 380 FFLs enroll with the NICS per month for a total of 4,560 enrollments per year. The average response time for reading the directions for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Enrollment/NICS E-Check Enrollment Form is estimated to be two minutes; time to complete the form is estimated to be three minutes; and the time it takes to assemble, mail, or fax the form to the FBI is estimated to be three minutes, for a total of eight minutes. The average hour burden for this specific form is 4,560 × 8 minutes/60 = 608 hours.
The FFL Officer/Employee Acknowledgment of Responsibilities Form under the NICS takes approximately three minutes to read the responsibilities and two minutes to complete the form, for a total of five minutes. The average hour burden for this specific form is 4,560 × 5 minutes/60 = 380 hours.
The Responsibilities of an FFL under the NICS Form takes an additional two minutes to read which would be 4,560 × 2 minutes/60 = 152 hours.
The entire process of reading the material and completing both forms would take 15 minutes per respondent. The average hour burden for completing both forms and reading the material would be 4,560 × 15/60 = 1,140 hours.
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required, please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 25, 2022.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott A. Brinks, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-2265.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required, please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 25, 2022.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott A. Brinks, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-2265.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
The Department of Justice component is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.
4.
5.
6.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP).
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until July 25, 2022.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Nathan Graham, Program Manager, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group, ViCAP, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia 22135; facsimile (703) 632- 4239.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
➢ Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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,
➢ Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 25, 2022.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(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) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 22 hours, that is 11 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.
On May 19, 2022, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in
The United States filed this lawsuit under Section 106, 107, and 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607, to recover its past response costs, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief at the Tremont Barrel Fill Superfund Site in German Township, Ohio (“Site”). The Consent Decree requires Defendants to clean up contamination at the Site, at an estimated cost of $27.7 million. The Consent Decree also requires Defendants to reimburse the United States' past response costs at the Site and compensate the United States for any future oversight costs.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Fifth Modification to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Fifth Modification to the 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 $7.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 27, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
Section 2 of Executive Order 14043, Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees, mandates that each agency “implement, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a program to require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its Federal employees, with exceptions only as required by law.” The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities unless that reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employee's agency. The Department of Labor is proposing to add student volunteers as respondents who may be requesting a medical exception or delay to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Additionally, the Department is proposing to add the form, Request for a Religious Exception or Delay to the COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement, to the ICR. This religious exemption form is necessary for DOL to determine legal exemptions to the vaccine requirement from student volunteers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As student volunteers are not considered to be Federal employees, the Department must account for the burden for student volunteers to complete the form. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
The vaccination requirement issued pursuant to E.O. 14043, is currently the subject of a nationwide preliminary injunction. While that injunction remains in place, DOL will not process requests for a medical or religious exceptions from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043. DOL will also not request the submission of any medical or religious information related to a request for an exception from the vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 while the injunction remains in place. But DOL may nevertheless receive information regarding a medical exception. That is because, if DOL were to receive a request for an exception from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 during the pendency of the injunction, DOL will accept the request, hold it in abeyance, and notify the volunteer who submitted the request that implementation and enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 is currently enjoined and that an exception therefore is not necessary so long as the injunction is in place. In other words, during the pendency of the injunction, any information collection related to requests for medical or religious exceptions from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to E.O. 14043 will not be undertaken to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of ACCSH member appointment; notice of ACCSH committee and workgroup meetings.
On May 16, 2022, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) appointed a new member to ACCSH. This notice also includes the announcement of ACCSH and ACCSH Workgroup meetings.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) advises the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary) in the formulation of standards affecting the construction industry, and on policy matters arising in the administration of the safety and health provisions under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act (CSA)) (40 U.S.C. 3701
ACCSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2), and its implementing regulations (41 CFR 102-3
The Secretary appointed Mr. Kenneth G. Seal, Industrial Specialist/Safety and Health Representative for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, to serve on ACCSH as an Employee Representative. Mr. Seal replaces Ms. Cheryl Ambrose who resigned. Mr. Seal, like Ms. Ambrose, represents employee interests and will serve the remainder of Ms. Ambrose's term, which ends May 14, 2023.
ACCSH will meet from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., ET, Wednesday, June 15, 2022. The meeting is open to the public.
• Assistant Secretary's agency update and remarks;
• Occupational Exposure to COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings;
• Directorate of Construction industry update;
• ACCSH Workgroup reports;
• Discussion of OSHA's Construction Focus Four Hazards and Infrastructure; and,
• Public comment period.
In conjunction with the ACCSH meeting, the following ACCSH Work Groups will meet on June 14, 2022. ACCSH Workgroup meetings are open to the public.
• Infrastructure—10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
• Education and Training—1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Emerging and Current Issues—3:10 to 5:10 p.m.
Public attendance at the ACCSH Committee and Workgroup meetings will be virtual only. Meeting information will be posted in the Docket (Docket No. OSHA-2022-0001) and on the ACCSH web page,
• The amount of time requested to speak;
• The interest you represent (
• A brief outline of your presentation.
PowerPoint presentations and other electronic materials must be compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and other Microsoft Office 2010 formats.
Alternately, you may request to address ACCSH briefly during the public-comment period. At her discretion, the ACCSH Chair may grant requests to address ACCSH as time and circumstances permit.
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 655, 40 U.S.C. 3704, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), 5 U.S.C. app. 2, and 29 CFR part 1912.
Signed at Washington, DC.
Office of Management and Budget.
Request for information; extension of comment period.
On April 21, 2022, OMB issued a request for information seeking input concerning requirements that any infrastructure projects funded with Federal financial assistance under the Build America, Buy America Act (“the Act”), enacted as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) on November 15, 2021, only use construction materials “produced in the United States.” The notice also sought input on behalf of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) on a definition for “end product manufactured in the United States,” for incorporation into the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The deadline for submitting comments is being extended from May 23, 2022 to June 6, 2022 to provide additional time for interested parties to provide comments.
For the RFI published on April 21, 2022, submit comments on or before 11:59 p.m. June 6, 2022.
Please submit any written comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions about this RFI, please contact Tim Soltis, Office of Management and Budget, 202-395-7587, or via email (preferred) at
OMB published an RFI in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Planetary Science Advisory Committee. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Tuesday, June 21, 2022, 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Thursday, June 23, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Note: All times listed are Eastern Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 8R40, 300 E Street SW, Washington DC 20546.
Ms. KarShelia Kinard, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355 or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will also be available telephonically and via WebEx. For Tuesday, June 21, the WebEx information for attendees is:
The WebEx number is: 2762 920 8201 and the password is 8yiSPwY3MM2 (89477993 from phones). To join by telephone call, use US Toll: +1-415-527-5035 (Access Code: 276 292 08201).
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by June 27, 2022. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 or
Andrew Titmus, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703-292-4479.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR 671 as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas as requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
Take, Harmful Interference, Enter in Antarctic Special Protected Area, Import to USA. The applicant requests authorization to enter Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) No. 124, Cape Crozier, to conduct physiological and ecological studies on emperor penguins (
Cape Crozer, ASPA No. 124; Eastern Ross Sea, Antarctica
October 1, 2022-May 30, 2023
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), in collaboration with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), requests comment from the public on its draft Decadal Strategic Plan.
Interested persons and organizations are invited to submit comments before 11:59 p.m. ET, 15 July 2022.
Submit comments electronically via the USGCRP R&C System (
Direct technical questions to David Dokken (Senior Program Officer) at
With the implementation phase of USGCRP's
USGCRP seeks feedback on program priorities and accompanying narrative in the strategic pillar sections. Respondents should consider (i) ideas on emerging, large-scale scientific questions related to global change and/or response, especially those where interagency collaboration will be critical; (ii) specific information on how science is or is not being used to inform societal response to climate change, and why; and (iii) knowledge gaps and obstacles to implementing scientific tools or knowledge.
Individuals wishing to participate in the public review of the draft 2022-2031 USGCRP Strategic Plan are encouraged to register via the USGCRP Review and Comment (R&C) System (
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates research across 13 Federal agencies to understand the human-induced and natural processes that influence the total Earth system—the atmosphere, land, water, ecosystems, and people. USGCRP was established by Presidential Initiative in 1989 and mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 (Sec 104, Pub. L. 101-606;
The draft Plan was prepared and vetted by Federal agency officials comprising the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR), which provides overall direction and executive oversight of the Program. SGCR, whose membership includes representatives of scientific and implementing agencies, is a standing body of the Committee on Environment, a component of the National Science and Technology Council.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order (“Order”) under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
The Commission:
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' third amended and restated application, dated April 8, 2022, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at, at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On December 30, 2021, MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Determination.
“Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters” and delegated authority, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, has determined that O Yong Ho, Roman Anatolyevich Alar, and Parsek LLC have engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery.
Thomas Zarzecki, Director, Office of Counterproliferation Initiatives, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel.: 202-647-5193.
On June 28, 2005, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery (including missiles capable of delivering such weapons), including any efforts to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use such items, by any person or foreign country of proliferation concern; (3) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, any activity or transaction described in clause (2) above or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order; and (4) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order.
Pursuant to the authority in section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13382 and delegated authority, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, has determined that O Yong Ho, Roman Anatolyevich Alar, and Parsek LLC have engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery.
Identifying information on the on the two individuals and one entity is as follows:
The two individuals and the entity above have been added to the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. All of their property and interests in property that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked.
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. ET. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 3rd quarter of FY 2022, and other business.
State Justice Institute Headquarters, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA, 22033.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-660-4979,
By petition filed on March 17, 2022, Great Walton Railroad Company d/b/a Hartwell Railroad Company (GWRC) seeks an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 to acquire ownership and control of Hartwell Railroad Company (HRC). As discussed below, the Board will grant the exemption.
HRC, a Class III carrier, owns a rail line that extends between milepost 0.5 at Toccoa, Ga., and milepost 48.8 at Elberton, Ga. (the Toccoa-Elberton Line). (Pet. 2;
In support of the petition, GWRC asserts that the proposed transaction will not result in any changes in service levels, operational changes, or changes in the competitive balance with other rail carriers.
Under 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(3), the acquisition of control of a rail carrier by any number of rail carriers requires prior Board approval. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a), however, the Board must exempt a transaction or service from regulation if it finds that: (1) Regulation is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy (RTP) of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either the transaction or service is limited in scope, or regulation is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market power.
In this case, an exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 is consistent with the standards of 10502. Detailed scrutiny of the proposed transaction through an application for review and approval under 11323-25 is not necessary here to carry out the RTP. An exemption would promote the RTP by minimizing the need for federal regulatory control over the transaction, 10101(2); ensuring the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system that would continue to meet the needs of the public, 10101(4); fostering sound economic conditions in transportation, 10101(5); encouraging efficient management, 10101(9); and providing for the expeditious resolution of this proceeding, 10101(15). Other aspects of the RTP would not be adversely affected.
Regulation of the transaction is not needed to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because all carriers involved are Class III carriers.
The proposed transaction is exempt from environmental reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(1)(i) because it would not result in any significant change in carrier operations. The transaction is also exempt from the historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(3), because it would not substantially change the level of maintenance of railroad properties.
GWRC states that the proposed transaction would be consummated on or shortly after the effective date of the exemption. The exemption will be effective June 22, 2022, and petitions to stay will be due by June 2, 2022. Petitions for reconsideration or petitions to reopen will be due by June 13, 2022.
It is ordered:
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 the transaction described above.
2. Notice of the exemption will be published in the
3. The exemption will become effective on June 22, 2022. Petitions to stay must be filed by June 2, 2022.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Request to Release Airport Improvement Program Property.
Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Port of Portland, Oregon to waive the property requirements for approximately .78 acres of airport property and the release from aeronautical to non-aeronautical for approximately .30 acres of airport property located at Hillsboro Airport, in Hillsboro, Oregon.
Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the
Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office,
The subject properties are located in the south and northeast section of the airport. This release will allow the Port to sell .78 acres of Tax Lots 1N232AD02100, 1N232AD02200, 1N232AB00500, 1N232AB00100, 1N232AB00102 and 1N2280001550 to the City of Hillsboro to facilitate Cornell Road and NE 25th Avenue and Cornell Road and NE Brookwood Parkway road expansion and safety improvements. This release will also allow .30 acres of Tax Lots 1N232AD02100, 1N232AD02200, 1N232AB00100 and 1N232AB00102 to be designated as non-aeronautical easements for public utility and traffic control device purposes. There will be proceeds generated from the proposed release of this property for capital improvements at the airport. The Port will receive not less than fair market value for the property and the revenue generated from the sale will be used for airport purposes. It has been determined through study that the subject partial parcel will not be needed for aeronautical purposes.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on April 29, 2022, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to extend a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 236.566,
Specifically, UPRR requests a temporary extension of relief from § 236.566 to allow it to comply with a condition of FRA's decision letter dated April 6, 2022, primarily concerning Docket Number FRA-2021-0011.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by July 25, 2022 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the opportunity to apply for $13,160,021 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 and FY 2022 funding under the Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning (TOD Pilot Program). As required by Federal public transportation law and subject to funding availability, funds will be awarded competitively to support comprehensive planning or site-specific planning associated with new fixed guideway and core capacity improvement projects. FTA may award additional funding that is made available to the TOD Pilot Program prior to the announcement of project selections.
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
April McLean-McCoy, FTA Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-7429, or
Section 20005(b) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012), with funding authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5338(a)(2)(B), and section 30009 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58), authorizes FTA to award grants under the TOD Pilot Program. This funding opportunity is occurring under Federal Assistance Listing number 20.500.
This program supports FTA's strategic goals and objectives through the timely and efficient investment in public transportation. The TOD Pilot Program grants are competitively awarded to local communities to integrate land use and transportation planning with a new fixed guideway or core capacity improvement transit capital project as defined in Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5309(a)). (See Section C of this NOFO for more information about eligibility.) The TOD Pilot Program supports the President's efforts to mobilize American ingenuity to build a modern infrastructure and an equitable future. In addition, through promotion of increased transportation access to environmental justice populations, equity-focused community outreach and public engagement of underserved communities and adoption of equity-focused policies, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and addressing the effects of climate change, the TOD Program and this NOFO advance the goals of Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government; Executive Order 13900: Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle Climate Crisis; and Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. Additionally, in support of the Federal House America Initiative led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, DOT, through this NOFO, is reviewing opportunities to prioritize TOD planning grants in areas of high incidence rates of homelessness, in the hope of providing opportunities for localities to address homelessness holistically through their planning processes.
The TOD Pilot Program intends to fund comprehensive planning that supports economic development, increased transit ridership and value capture multimodal connectivity, accessibility, increased transit access for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and mixed-use and mixed-income development near transit stations; delivers 40 percent of the overall benefits of the planning work to Historically Disadvantaged Communities (defined below); and addresses climate change, challenges facing environmental justice populations, and homelessness. The TOD Pilot Program also encourages the identification of infrastructure needs and engagement with the private sector.
FTA is seeking comprehensive or site-specific planning projects that cover an entire transit capital project corridor. To ensure that any proposed planning work both reflects the needs and aspirations of the local community and results in concrete, specific deliverables and outcomes, transit project sponsors must partner with entities with land use planning authority in the transit project corridor to conduct the planning work.
FTA intends to award all available funding in the form of grants to selected applicants responding to this NOFO. A total of $13,160,021 will be made available through this NOFO. The authorized funding level in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is $13,157,184 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 funds and $2,837 remaining from the FY 2021 appropriation. Additional funds made available prior to project selection may be allocated to eligible projects. Only proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities will be considered for funding. Due to funding limitations, applicants that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested and are thus encouraged to identify a scaled funding request in their application.
In response to the last NOFO that closed on June 21, 2021, the TOD Pilot Program received applications for 24 eligible projects requesting a total of $16,401,500. Of the 24 eligible applications received, (20) projects were funded at a total of $11,026,500.
FTA will grant pre-award authority to incur costs for selected projects beginning on the date FY 2022 project selections are announced on FTA's website. Funds are available for obligation for four fiscal years after the fiscal year in which the competitive awards are announced. Funds are available only for projects that have not incurred costs prior to the announcement of project selections.
Applicants to the TOD Pilot Program must be a State or States, U.S. Territory, or local governmental authorities and FTA grant recipient (
Only one application per transit capital project corridor may be submitted to FTA. Multiple applications submitted for a single transit capital project corridor indicate that partnerships are not in place, and FTA may reject all of the applications. FTA will accept multiple applications for the same corridor if each application is a site-specific application, the applications are submitted by separate applicants with different land-use authorities, and a given application does not overlap with any other application that would cover the same site.
The maximum Federal funding share is 80 percent.
Eligible sources of non-Federal match include the following: Cash from non-Federal sources (other than revenues from providing public transportation services); revenues derived from the sale of advertising and concessions; amounts received under a service agreement with a State or local social service agency or private social service organization; revenues generated from value capture financing mechanisms; funds from an undistributed cash surplus; replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve; or new funding. In-kind contributions are permitted. Transportation Development Credits (formerly referred to as Toll Revenue Credits) may not be used to satisfy the non-Federal match requirement.
Any comprehensive or site-specific planning work proposed for funding under the TOD Pilot Program must be associated with an eligible transit capital project. To be eligible, the proposed transit capital project must be a new fixed guideway project or a core capacity improvement project, as defined by Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5302(8)).
A fixed guideway is a public transportation facility:
(A) Using and occupying a separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of public transportation;
(B) using rail;
(C) using a fixed catenary system;
(D) for a passenger ferry system; or
(E) for a bus rapid transit system.
A new fixed guideway capital project is defined in (49 U.S.C. 5309(a)) to be:
(A) A new fixed guideway project that is a minimum operable segment or extension to an existing fixed guideway system; or
(B) a fixed guideway bus rapid transit project that is a minimum operable segment or an extension to an existing bus rapid transit system.
A fixed guideway bus rapid transit project is defined in (49 U.S.C. 5309(a)) as a bus capital project:
(A) In which the majority of the project operates in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods;
(B) that represents a substantial investment in a single route in a defined corridor or subarea; and
(C) that includes features that emulate the services provided by rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, including:
(i) Defined stations;
(ii) traffic signal priority for public transportation vehicles;
(iii) short headway bidirectional services for a substantial part of weekdays and weekend days; and
(iv) any other features the Secretary may determine are necessary to produce high-quality public transportation services that emulate the services provided by rail fixed guideway public transportation systems.
A core capacity improvement project is defined by 49 U.S.C. 5309(a) to mean a substantial corridor-based capital investment in an existing fixed guideway system that increases the capacity of the corridor by not less than 10 percent. The term does not include project elements designed to maintain a state of good repair of the existing fixed guideway system.
Comprehensive or site-specific planning work in a corridor for a transit capital project that does not meet the statutory definitions above of either a new fixed guideway project or a core capacity improvement project is not eligible under the TOD Pilot Program.
As outlined in the Application Review Information section below, any comprehensive or site-specific planning funded under the TOD Pilot Program must address all six factors set forth set in Section 20005(b)(2) of MAP-21, as amended by section 30009 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Additionally, the comprehensive or site-specific planning effort must advance the metropolitan planning organization's metropolitan transportation plan. Applicants must establish performance criteria for the planning effort.
The following are examples of the types of substantial deliverables that may result from the comprehensive or site-specific planning work. Substantial deliverables are reports, plans and other materials that represent the key accomplishments of the comprehensive planning effort and that must be submitted to FTA as each is completed. Substantial deliverables may include, but are not restricted to, the following:
i. A comprehensive plan report that includes corridor development policies and station development plans comprising the corridor or the specific site, a proposed timeline, and recommended financing strategies for these plans;
ii. A strategic plan report that includes corridor specific planning strategies and program recommendations to support comprehensive planning;
iii. Revised TOD-focused zoning codes and/or resolutions;
iv. A report evaluating and recommending financial tools to encourage TOD implementation such as land banking, value capture, and development financing;
v. Policies to encourage TOD, including actions that reduce regulatory barriers that unnecessarily raise the costs of housing development or impede the development of affordable housing;
vi. Policies to encourage TOD, including actions that increase access to environmental justice populations, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and the effects of climate change, or
vii. Local or regional resolutions to implement TOD plans and/or establish TOD funding mechanisms;
viii. Policies to prioritize TOD in areas with high incidence rates of homelessness for localities to address homelessness holistically through their planning processes;
FTA will not make awards for the following activities:
i. Transit project development activities that would be reimbursable under an FTA capital grant, such as project planning, the design and engineering of stations and other facilities, environmental analyses needed for the transit capital project, or
ii. Capital projects, such as land acquisition, construction, and utility relocation.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
Failure to submit information as requested can delay review or disqualify the application. Proposals must include a completed SF-424 Mandatory form and the following attachments to the completed SF-424:
i. A completed Applicant and Proposal Profile supplemental form for the TOD Pilot Program (supplemental form) found on the FTA website at
ii. A map of the proposed study area showing the transit project alignment and stations, major roadways, major landmarks, and the geographic boundaries of the proposed comprehensive planning activities;
iii. Documentation of a partnership between the transit project sponsor and an entity in the project corridor with land use planning authority to conduct the comprehensive planning work, if the applicant does not have both of these responsibilities. Documentation may consist of a memorandum of agreement or letter of intent signed by all parties that describes the parties' roles and responsibilities in the proposed comprehensive planning project; and
iv. Documentation of any funding commitments for the proposed comprehensive or site-specific planning work.
Information such as the applicant's name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, and description of the study area, are requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF-424 form and supplemental form. Applicants must fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms. Applicants should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” buttons on both forms to check all required fields and ensure that the Federal and local amounts specified are consistent. In the event of errors with the supplemental form, FTA recommends saving the form on your computer and ensuring that JavaScript is enabled in your PDF reader. The information listed below must be included on the SF-424 and supplemental forms for TOD Pilot Program funding applications.
The SF-424 and supplemental form will prompt applicants to address the following items:
1. Provide the name of the lead applicant and, if applicable, the specific co-sponsors submitting the application.
2. Provide the applicant's Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number.
3. Provide contact information including: Contact name, title, address, phone number, and email address.
4. Specify the Congressional district(s) where the planning project will take place.
5. Identify the project title and project scope to be funded, including anticipated substantial deliverables and the milestones at when they will be provided to FTA.
6. Identify and describe an eligible transit project that meets the requirements of Section C, subsection 3 of this notice.
7. Provide evidence of a partnership between the transit project sponsor and at least one agency with land use authority in the transit capital project corridor, as described earlier in this subsection.
8. Address the six factors set forth in MAP-21 Section 20005(b)(2).
9. Address each evaluation criterion separately, demonstrating how the project responds to each criterion as described in Section E.
10. Provide a line-item budget for the total planning effort, with enough detail to indicate the various key components of the comprehensive planning project.
11. Identify the Federal amount requested.
12. Document the matching funds, including amount and source of the match (may include local or private sector financial participation in the project). Describe whether the matching funds are committed or planned and include documentation of the commitments.
13. Provide explanation of the scalability of the project.
14. Address whether other Federal funds have been sought or received for the comprehensive or site-specific planning project.
15. Provide a schedule and process for the development of the comprehensive plan that includes anticipated dates for incorporating the planning work effort into the region's unified planning work program, completing major tasks and substantial deliverables, and completing the overall planning effort.
16. Describe how the comprehensive or site-specific planning work advances the metropolitan transportation plan of the metropolitan planning organization.
17. Propose performance criteria for the development and implementation of the comprehensive or site-specific planning work.
18. Identify potential State, local or other impediments to the implementation of the comprehensive plan or site-specific plan, and how the work will address them.
19. Describe how the comprehensive or site-specific planning work addresses climate change and elevates challenges facing environmental justice populations.
20. Describe how the comprehensive or site-specific planning work allows 40 percent of the overall benefits to flow to Historically Disadvantaged Communities (defined below).
21. Describe how the comprehensive or site-specific planning work prioritizes TOD plans in areas with high incidence rates of homelessness and addresses homelessness holistically through their planning processes.
22. Describe how the comprehensive or site-specific planning work addresses the historic displacement of historically disadvantaged populations and how it seeks to mitigate the displacement or improve the conditions for populations at risk of displacement, if possible. In addition, how will local residents surrounding the comprehensive or site-specific planning work will include community engagement, especially those that have been historically excluded.
23. Describe how the comprehensive or site-specific planning work includes value capture elements.
24. Describe the community input process for your comprehensive or site-
25. Describe how the comprehensive or site-specific planning work incorporates affordable housing or other mixed-income elements.
Each applicant is required to: (1) Be registered in SAM before submitting an application; (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the applicant has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by FTA. FTA may not make an award until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FTA is ready to make an award, FTA may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant. These requirements do not apply if the applicant is excepted from registration per 2 CFR 25.110. SAM registration takes approximately 3-5 business days, but FTA recommends allowing ample time, up to several weeks, for completion of all steps. For additional information on obtaining a unique entity identifier, please visit
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
Within 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive two email messages from
FTA urges applicants to submit their applications at least 96 hours prior to the due date to allow time to receive the validation messages and to correct any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.
Applicants are encouraged to begin the registration process on the
See Section C of this NOFO for detailed eligibility requirements. FTA emphasizes that any comprehensive or site-specific planning projects funded through the TOD Pilot Program must be associated with an eligible transit project, specifically a new fixed guideway project or a core capacity improvement project as defined in Federal transit statute, 49 U.S.C. 5309(a). Projects are not required to be funded through the Capital Investment Grant Program. Funds must be used only for the specific purposes requested in the application. Funds under this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse projects for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to FTA's announcement of project selections and issuance of pre-award authority. Refer to Section C.3., Eligible Projects, for information on activities that are allowable in this grant program. Allowable direct and indirect expenses must be consistent with the Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements and Cost Principles (2 CFR part 200) and FTA Circular 5010.1E.
Applicants are encouraged to identify scaled funding options in case insufficient funding is available to fund a project at the full requested amount. If an applicant indicates that a project is scalable, the applicant must provide an appropriate minimum funding amount that will fund an eligible project that achieves the objectives of the program and meets all relevant program requirements. The applicant must provide a clear explanation of how the project budget would be affected by a reduced award. FTA may award a lesser amount regardless of whether a scalable option is provided.
All applications must be submitted via the
FTA encourages applicants to demonstrate whether they have considered climate change and environmental justice in terms of the transportation planning process or anticipated design components with outcomes that address climate change (
Applicants should identify any Environmental Justice (EJ) populations located within the proposed service area and describe anticipated benefits to that population(s) should the applicant receive a grant under this program. A formal EJ analysis that is typically included in transportation planning or environmental reviews is not requested.
Project proposals will be evaluated primarily on the responses provided in the supplemental form. Additional information may be provided to support the responses; however, any additional documentation must be directly referenced on the supplemental form, including the file name where the additional information can be found. Applications will be evaluated based on the quality and extent to which the following evaluation criteria are addressed.
Whether the project funded under the TOD Pilot Program addresses all six factors set forth in Section 20005(b)(2) of MAP-21, as amended by section 30009 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law:
i. Enhances economic development, ridership, and other goals established during the project development and engineering processes;
ii. facilitates multimodal connectivity and accessibility;
iii. increases access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic;
iv. enables mixed-use development;
v. identifies infrastructure needs associated with the eligible project; and
vi. includes private sector participation.
FTA will evaluate each project to determine the need for funding based on the following factors:
i. How the proposed work will advance TOD implementation in the corridor and region;
ii. Justification as to why Federal funds are needed for the proposed work;
iii. Extent to which the transit project corridor could benefit from TOD planning.
iv. Extent to which TOD planning will address climate change and challenges facing environmental justice populations.
FTA will evaluate the strength of the work plan, schedule and process included in an application based on the following factors:
i. Potential state, local or other impediments to the implementation of the comprehensive or site-specific plan, and how the workplan will address them;
ii. Extent to which the schedule contains sufficient detail, identifies all steps needed to implement the work proposed, and is achievable;
iii. The proportion of the project corridor covered by the work plan;
iv. Extent of partnerships, including how community stakeholders will engage and consider the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services.
v. The partnerships' technical capability to develop, adopt and implement the comprehensive plans, based on FTA's assessment of the applicant's description of the policy formation, implementation, and financial roles of the partners, and the roles and responsibilities of proposed staff;
vi. Extent to which this TOD planning effort increases access for environmental justice populations and allows them to participate in this TOD planning effort;
vii. Extent to which the comprehensive planning work will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change;
viii. How the performance measures identified in the application relate to the goals of the comprehensive planning work.
FTA will assess the status of local matching funds for the planning work. Applications demonstrating that matching funds for the proposed comprehensive planning work are already committed will receive higher ratings from FTA on this factor. Proposed comprehensive planning projects for which matching funding sources have been identified, but are not yet committed, will be given lower ratings under this factor by FTA, as will proposed comprehensive planning projects for which in-kind contributions constitute the primary or sole source of match.
A technical evaluation committee will verify each proposal's eligibility and evaluate proposals based on the published evaluation criteria. FTA may request additional information from applicants, if necessary. Taking into consideration the findings of the technical evaluation committee, the FTA Administrator will determine the final selection of projects for program funding.
After applying the above criteria, in support of the President's January 20, 2021, Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, the FTA Administrator will consider applications that may provide other air quality benefits as part of the application review. Applicants should identify any nonattainment or maintenance areas under the Clean Air Act in the proposed service area. Nonattainment or maintenance areas should be limited to the following applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter 2.5 and 10. The EPA's Green Book (available at
In further support of Executive Order 14008, FTA will give priority consideration to applications that create significant community benefits relating to the environment, including those projects that address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts. FTA encourages applicants to demonstrate whether they have considered climate change and environmental justice in terms of the transportation planning process or anticipated design components with outcomes that address climate change (
In addition, FTA will consider benefits to EJ communities when reviewing applications received under this program. Applicants should identify any EJ populations located within the proposed service area and describe anticipated benefits to that population(s) should the applicant receive a grant under this program. A formal EJ analysis that is typically included in transportation planning or environmental reviews is not requested. Among the factors, in determining the allocation of program funds FTA may consider geographic diversity, diversity in the size of the grantees receiving funding, or the applicant's receipt of other competitive awards. Respectively, FTA will evaluate the proposals to determine the extent that the proposed project will address affordable housing needs, provide equitable housing choices for environmental justice populations, and avoid displacement of low-income households and existing small businesses.
In support of Executive Order 14008, and consistent with OMB's Interim Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative, Historically Disadvantaged Communities include (a) certain qualifying census tracts, (b) any Tribal land, or (c) any territory or possession of the United States. DOT is providing a mapping tool to assist applicants in identifying whether a project is located in a Historically Disadvantaged Community at:
Prior to making an award, FTA is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems (FAPIIS) accessible through SAM. An applicant may review and comment on information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. FTA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200.205).
(a) The FTA Administrator will announce the final project selections on the FTA website. Project recipients should contact their FTA Regional Offices for additional information regarding allocations for projects under the TOD Pilot Program.
FTA will issue specific guidance to recipients regarding pre-award authority at the time of selection. FTA does not provide pre-award authority for competitive funds until projects are selected and even then, there are Federal requirements that must be met before costs are incurred. Funds under this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse applicants for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to FTA award of a Grant Agreement until FTA has issued pre-award authority for selected projects, or unless FTA has issued a “Letter of No Prejudice” for the project before the expenses are incurred. For more information about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, please see the most recent Apportionment Notice at:
If selected, awardees will apply for a grant through FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS). Recipients of TOD Pilot Program funds are subject to the grant requirements of the Section 5303 Metropolitan Planning program, including those of FTA Circular 8100.1C and Circular 5010.1E. All competitive grants, regardless of award amount, will be subject to the Congressional Notification and release process. Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office.
FTA encourages applicants to notify the appropriate metropolitan planning organizations in areas likely to be served by the funds made available under this program. Selected projects must be incorporated into the unified planning work programs of metropolitan areas before they are eligible for FTA funding or pre-award authority.
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, directives, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project, unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant if it does not have current certifications on file.
FTA requires that its recipients receiving planning, capital, and/or operating assistance that will award prime contracts exceeding $250,000 in FTA funds in a Federal fiscal year comply with Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program regulations (49 CFR part 26). Applicants should expect to include any funds awarded, excluding those to be used for vehicle
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports in FTA's electronic grants management system on a quarterly basis. Applicants should include any goals, targets, and indicators referenced in their application to the project in the Executive Summary of the TrAMS application. Awardees must also submit copies of the substantial deliverables identified in the work plan to the FTA regional office at the corresponding milestones.
As part of completing the annual certifications and assurances required of FTA grant recipients, a successful applicant must report on the suspension or debarment status of itself and its principals. If the award recipient's active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award made pursuant to this Notice, the recipient must comply with the Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters reporting requirements described in Appendix XII to 2 CFR part 200.
For program-specific questions, please contact April McLean-McCoy, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-7429, email:
For issues with
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2, that the Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board (the Board) will meet on June 21-22, 2022, at 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Building 500, Room 1281, Los Angeles, CA. The meeting sessions will begin and end as follows:
Sessions are open to the public, except during the time the Board is conducting tours of VA facilities, participating in off-site events, and participating in workgroup sessions. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
The Board was established by the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 on September 29, 2016. The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on identifying the goals of the community and Veteran partnership; improving services and outcomes for Veterans, members of the Armed Forces, and the families of such Veterans and members; and on the implementation of the Draft Master Plan approved by the Secretary on January 28, 2016, and on the creation and implementation of any successor master plans.
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. PST, the Board will meet in open session with key staff of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS). The Advisory Committee Management Office will present FACA 101 training. The agenda will include opening remarks from the Committee Chair, Executive Sponsor, and other VA officials. There will be a general update from the Director of the Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS). From 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST, the Board will convene with a closed tour of the VA Greater Los Angles Healthcare System. Tours of VA facilities are closed to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
On Wednesday, June 22, 2022, the Board will reconvene in open session at 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Building 500, Room 1281, Los Angeles, CA, and receive a comprehensive presentation from the Community Engagement and Reintegration Services (CERS) team from VAGLAHS. The Office of Strategic, Facility & Master Planning, VAGLAHS will provide a Master Plan 2022 update, followed by a detailed Principal Developer update by the West Los Angeles Collective to include plans and vison for the Town Center. The Board will receive a briefing from the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the results of the two OIG audit reports. Brentwood Schools and UCLA leaseholders have been invited to provide updates on their leases and contributions to date, for Veterans. The Board's subcommittees on Outreach and Community Engagement with Services and Outcomes, and Master Plan with Services and Outcomes will provide an out brief to the full Board and update on draft recommendations to be considered for forwarding to the Secretary.
Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on June 22, at 11:15 a.m. PST. Public Individuals wishing to make public comments should contact Chihung Szeto at (562) 708-9959 or at
Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Mr. Eugene W. Skinner, Jr. at (202) 631-7645 or at
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 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 July 25, 2022.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, 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.
The information collected under § 36.4333 is used by VA to ensure lenders and servicers who participate in VA's Loan Guaranty program follow statutory and regulatory requirements, such as those relating to credit information, loan processing requirements, underwriting standards, servicing requirements, and other applicable laws, regulations and policies. VA also uses data collected under this authority to provide annual feedback to lenders, through the Lender Scorecard, on certain loan characteristics such as interest rate, fees and charges, audit results, etc., as compared to the national average of all VA lenders.
By direction of the Secretary.