Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Utilities Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Employee Benefits Security Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Avocado Administrative Committee to increase the assessment rate established for the 2022-23 and subsequent fiscal years. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective September 26, 2022.
Delaney Fuhrmeister, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Chief, Southeast Region Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 121 and Marketing Order No. 915, both as amended (7 CFR part 915), regulating the handling of avocados grown in south Florida. Part 915 (referred to as “the Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Avocado Administrative Committee (Committee) locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within the area of production, and a public member.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Executive Orders 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have tribal implications. AMS has determined that this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Florida avocado handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable Florida avocados for the 2022-23 fiscal year, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that the administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the 2022-23 and subsequent fiscal years from $0.45 to $0.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent of avocados.
The Order authorizes the Committee, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are able to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting, and all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2021-22 and subsequent fiscal years, the Committee recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to AMS.
The Committee met on January 12, 2022, and recommended 2022-23 expenditures of $268,484 and an assessment rate of $0.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent of avocados. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $348,484. The assessment rate of $0.50 is $0.05 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee discussed the need to increase the assessment rate based on the 2022-23 crop estimate of 500,000 55-pound containers, a decrease from 800,000 from the previous year. At the current assessment rate, assessment income would equal only $225,000, an
Major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2022-23 year include $116,164 for salaries, $53,350 for employee benefits, and $26,500 for office rent and supplies. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2021-22 were $116,164, $53,350, and $26,500 respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by reviewing anticipated expenses, expected shipments of Florida avocados, and the level of funds in reserve. Avocado shipments for the year are estimated at 500,000 55-pound containers, which should provide $250,000 in assessment income (500,000 containers × $0.50). Income derived from handler assessments at the increased rate, along with interest income, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently about $230,000) are expected to be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately three fiscal years' expenses as authorized in § 915.42).
The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. Dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or AMS. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2022-23 budget and those for subsequent fiscal years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by AMS.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are 315 growers of Florida avocados in the production area and 24 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural avocado growers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $3,000,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $30,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201). The SBA threshold for growers changed in between the proposed and the final rule. Thus, AMS changed the RFA to reflect the new amount in this final rule. The change did not impact the number of growers considered to be small.
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average grower price paid for Florida avocados during the 2020-21 season was $21.97 per 55-pound container. Utilized production was equivalent to 624,364 55-pound containers for a total value of over $13,717,277 ($21.97 multiplied by 624,364 55-pound containers). Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of growers yields an estimated average receipt per grower of $43,547 ($13,717,277 divided by 315), so the majority of growers would have annual receipts of less than $3,000,000.
AMS Market News reported that April 2021 terminal market prices for green skinned avocados were about $83.60 per 55-pound container. Using this price and the total utilization, the total 2020-21 handler crop value is estimated at $52.2 million ($83.60 multiplied by 624,364 55-pound containers). Dividing this figure by the number of handlers yields an estimated average annual handler receipt of $2.18 million ($52.2 million divided by 24), which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Thus, the majority of Florida avocado growers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2022-23 and subsequent fiscal years from $0.45 to $0.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent of avocados. The Committee recommended 2022-23 expenditures of $268,484 and an assessment rate of $0.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent of avocados. The assessment rate of $0.50 is $0.05 higher than the previous rate. The quantity of assessable avocados for the 2022-23 season is estimated at 500,000 55-pound containers. Thus, the $0.50 rate should provide $250,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
Major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2022-23 fiscal year include $116,164 for salaries, $53,350 for employee benefits, and $26,500 for office rent and supplies. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2021-22 were $116,164, $53,350, and $26,500, respectively.
The Committee recommended increasing the assessment based on the 2022-23 crop estimate of 500,000 55-pound containers, which is a decrease from the 800,000 55-pound containers estimated for the previous year. At the current assessment rate, assessment income would equal $225,000, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures of $268,484. By increasing the assessment rate by $0.05, assessment income would be $250,000, which would reduce the amount of funds needed from the reserve. This amount, along with interest income, and funds from the reserve, should provide sufficient funds to meet 2022-23 anticipated expenses.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.45. The Committee ultimately determined that leaving the assessment rate unchanged would not generate sufficient revenue to meet the Committee's 2022-23 expenditures of $268,484. Therefore, the Committee rejected the idea of maintaining the current assessment rate.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal year indicates that the grower price for the 2022-23 fiscal year should be around $22.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent of avocados. The increased assessment rate of $0.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent of avocados represents 2.2 percent of the $22.50 estimated average grower price ($0.50 divided by $22.50 × 100).
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to growers. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.
The Committee meetings are widely publicized throughout the Florida avocado industry and all interested persons are invited to attend meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the January 12, 2022, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida avocado handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying 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.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Avocados, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 915 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after April 1, 2022, an assessment rate of $0.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent is established for avocados grown in South Florida.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; correction.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective September 15, 2022.
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
DOE published a final rule in the
In final rule FR Doc. 2022-16951, published in the issue of Tuesday, August 16, 2022 (87 FR 50396), the following correction is made:
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 19, 2022, by Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Undersecretary for Science and Innovation, 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 Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-14-28, which applied to all de Havilland Inc. (type certificate currently held by Viking Air Limited) Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes. AD 2002-14-28 established a life limit for the front fuselage struts and required repetitively replacing the front fuselage struts every 15 years or repetitively inspecting the struts for corrosion or fatigue damage and replacing when the damage exceeded a certain level. Since the FAA issued AD 2002-14-28, Transport Canada superseded its mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) to correct this unsafe condition on these products. This AD requires either doing recurring visual inspections, borescope inspections, and non-destructive inspections (NDIs) of the struts and airframe lugs with corrective action as necessary or replacing the struts every 15 years and doing recurring NDIs of the airframe lugs with corrective action as necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 30, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 30, 2022.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250) 656-0673; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Aziz Ahmed, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7329; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2002-14-28, Amendment 39-12828 (67 FR 47684, July 22, 2002) (AD 2002-14-28). AD 2002-14-28 applied to all de Havilland Inc. (type certificate currently held by Viking Air Limited) Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes. AD 2002-14-28 established a life limit for the front fuselage struts and required repetitively replacing the front fuselage struts every 15 years or repetitively inspecting the struts for corrosion or fatigue damage and replacing when the damage exceeded a certain level. The FAA issued AD 2002-14-28 to prevent structural failure of the front fuselage caused by corrosion or fatigue damage to the struts that develops over time, which could result in reduced or loss of airplane control.
The NPRM published in the
Operators have reported incidents of corrosion of the DHC-2 front fuselage struts which are installed on each side of the flight compartment windshield. Deterioration of the airframe lugs to which the struts are attached has also been reported. The actions specified by this [Transport Canada] AD are intended to prevent structural failure of the front fuselage caused by damage to the fuselage struts and airframe lugs that develops over time, which could result in the loss of airframe structural integrity.
AD CF-98-37 issued 29 September 1998 mandated a 15-year life limit on the strut. It also prohibited installation of part numbers (P/Ns) C2FS209 and C2FS210.
Revision 1, CF-98-37R1, introduced repetitive inspection as an alternative to replacement of the strut. Detailed visual inspection was required to begin within 12 months from the effective date of the [Transport Canada] AD and be repeated every 12 months regardless of the age of the strut. Ultrasonic thickness measurements were required to begin within 24 months from the effective date of the [Transport Canada] AD and be repeated every 5 years regardless of the age of the strut.
After AD CF-98-37R1 was issued, it was determined that the repetitive inspections are not required to be started until the strut has accumulated 15 years since installation. As a result, Transport Canada (TC) approved several AMOCs [alternative methods of compliance] to authorize starting the inspections at that time.
Since the issuance of AD CF-98-37R1, TC has received several Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs) indicating that the corrective actions of that [Transport Canada] AD have not been effective at controlling damage of the fuselage struts to an acceptable level.
Viking Air Ltd. (Viking) has determined that a modified program of recurring visual inspection, borescope inspection and non-destructive inspection (NDI) of the struts and airframe lugs would be more effective than the existing inspection program. This program modifies affected parts by introducing a hole to permit a borescope inspection if that hole does not already exist in the parts.
To implement the modified inspection program, Viking has published Service Bulletin (SB) V2/0010 and Technical Bulletin (TB) V2/00002 that provide specific instructions for performing the modification, inspections and measurements required by this [Transport Canada] AD. The SB and TB also define the follow-on actions associated with those inspections and measurements.
Viking has also developed a version of the front fuselage strut with improved resistance to corrosion and with provisions for borescope inspection. The improved struts have been assigned P/Ns C2FS3281A-9 (left strut) and C2FS3282A-9 (right strut).
The corrective actions of this [Transport Canada] AD differ from those of AD CF-98-37R1 in the following ways:
• AD CF-98-37R1 included the details for all of the corrective actions, it did not require reference to other documents. For this [Transport Canada] AD, the details of the corrective actions are now specified in a SB and a TB.
• AD CF-98-37R1 required repetitive detailed visual inspection (DVI) of the airframe lugs. This [Transport Canada] AD requires repetitive DVI and NDI of the airframe lugs.
• AD CF-98-37R1 only permitted installation of P/Ns C2FS3281A and C2FS3282A. This [Transport Canada] AD permits installation of those parts, the superseding Viking P/Ns, parts installed by TC-issued or -accepted Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) or Part Manufacturing Approval (PMA) and Part Design Approval (PDA) parts that are approved for installation in DHC-2 as replacements for P/Ns C2FS3281A and C2FS3282A. Those are all approved parts.
• AD CF-98-37R1 did not specify to remove parts from the aeroplane to perform inspections. This [Transport Canada] AD requires repetitive removal of the struts from the aeroplane followed by a NDI of the airframe lugs. This requirement applies to DHC-2 where the struts are being replaced when they reach 15 years since installation. It also applies to DHC-2 where the struts are kept in service and inspected as required by the SB and TB.
• AD CF-98-37R1 required the visual inspection to start within 12 months from the [Transport Canada] AD effective date and the NDI to start within 24 months from the [Transport Canada] AD effective date. This [Transport Canada] AD requires the repetitive inspections to start no later than when the struts have accumulated 15 years since initial installation.
• AD CF-98-37R1 required repetitive ultrasonic thickness measurement for all parts. This [Transport Canada] AD only requires that measurement if corrosion is detected during an inspection.
• AD CF-98-37R1 required visual inspection of the exterior surfaces of the strut with the strut installed in the aeroplane. For struts that have accumulated more than 15 years since first installation, this [Transport Canada] AD continues to require visual inspection of the accessible exterior surfaces of the strut with the strut installed. This [Transport Canada] AD also includes repetitive requirements for:
○ Inspection of the fillet sealant;
○ Borescope inspection of the interior of the strut; and
○ Removal of the strut from the aeroplane followed by visual inspection of the entire strut and NDI of the strut end fittings.
All TC-issued or -accepted AMOCs with AD CF-98-37R1 are cancelled on the effective date of this [Transport Canada] AD. Parts in service must be replaced or modified, inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of this [Transport Canada] AD unless TC approves AMOCs with the requirements of this [Transport Canada] AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require either doing recurring visual inspections, borescope inspections, and NDIs of the struts and airframe lugs with corrective action as necessary or replacing the struts every 15 years and doing recurring NDIs of the airframe lugs with corrective action as necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-2 Beaver Technical Bulletin No. V2/00002, Revision `A,' dated June 20, 2019. The service information specifies procedures for a detailed visual, borescope, and non-destructive testing (NDT) inspection of the front fuselage struts and airframe lugs.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin No. V2/0010, Revision `NC,' dated April 3, 2020. The service information contains a detailed and revised schedule for a detailed visual inspection of the forward-lower and aft-upper strut attachment points on the fuselage (mating airframe lugs) every 12 months, borescope inspection of the strut interior surfaces every 5 years, NDT inspection of the fuselage strut fork ends and lugs every 15 years, replacement of each fuselage strut every 15 years, and replacement of the 5-year ultrasonic thickness measurement as an option to the 15-year life limit.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 143 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The extent of damage found during the required inspections could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining how much damage may be found on each airplane, the cost to repair damaged parts on each airplane, or the number of airplanes that may require repair.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that 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 September 30, 2022.
This AD replaces AD 2002-14-28, Amendment 39-12828 (67 FR 47684, July 22, 2002) (AD 2002-14-28).
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5300, Fuselage Structure (General).
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as the development of damage to the front fuselage struts and airframe lugs over time. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the front fuselage struts, which could lead to failure of the airframe and loss of airplane control.
For purposes of this AD, a “serviceable part” is a front fuselage strut that has a part number (P/N) other than P/N C2FS209 and C2FS210 and meets the conditions in either paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this AD:
(1) Has accumulated less than 15 years since first installation on an airplane; or
(2) Has accumulated 15 or more years since first installation on an airplane and has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of this AD.
Comply with the initial actions in paragraph (h) of this AD at the applicable compliance time in paragraph (g)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes with a front fuselage strut that has been installed for less than 15 years as of the effective date of this AD: Before each front fuselage strut accumulates 15 years since first installation on an airplane.
(2) For airplanes with a front fuselage strut that has been installed for more than 15 years as of the effective date of this AD or with a front fuselage strut where the date of first installation on an airplane is unknown and the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (d)(2) of AD 2002-14-28 has not been done within the last 5 years: Before further flight.
(3) For airplanes with a front fuselage strut that has been installed for more than 15 years as of the effective date of this AD or with a front fuselage strut where the date of first installation on an airplane is unknown and the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (d)(2) of AD 2002-14-28 has been done within the last 5 years: Within 5 years from the date of the last ultrasonic inspection done in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of AD 2002-14-28.
(1) Do the actions in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD:
(i) Remove the front fuselage struts from service and install and seal serviceable parts in accordance with steps w. and y. through ii. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking DHC-2 Beaver Technical Bulletin No. V2/00002, Revision A, dated June 20, 2019 (Viking TB V2/00002); or
(ii) Do visual and borescope inspections of the front fuselage struts and non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections of the fuselage strut fork ends for corrosion and cracks in accordance with steps m. through p. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002, except you are not required to contact the manufacturer. Instead, do the actions in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
(2) Do visual and NDT inspections of the mating airframe lug surfaces and bolt holes for corrosion and cracks and replace if necessary in accordance with steps q., r., t., and u. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002, except you are not required to contact the manufacturer.
(3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, any crack or corrosion is found, before further flight, do one of the following:
(i) Remove the part from service and install and seal a serviceable part in accordance with steps w. and y. through ii. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002; or
(ii) If the wall thickness of the part is 0.030 inch or more, repair in accordance with step s.(2) of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002; or
(iii) Repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; Transport Canada; or Viking Air Limited's Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(1) After completing the actions in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (2) of this AD, unless already done, do the following:
(i) At intervals not to exceed 12 months, except when complying with paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or (2) of this AD, clean and visually inspect the front fuselage struts and airframe lugs for corrosion and cracking in accordance with steps n., p., and q. of Section II.B.1. or
(ii) At intervals not to exceed 5 years, except when complying with paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, do visual and borescope inspections of the front fuselage struts and a visual inspection of the airframe lugs for corrosion and cracking in accordance with steps m. through q. and t. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002, except you are not required to contact the manufacturer. If there is a crack or any corrosion, before further flight, comply with the actions in paragraph (h)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this AD.
(2) At intervals not to exceed 15 years, repeat the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7329; email:
(2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2020-22, dated June 5, 2020, for more information. You may examine the Transport Canada AD in the AD docket at
(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Viking DHC-2 Beaver Technical Bulletin No. V2/00002, Revision `A,' dated June 20, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Viking Air Ltd service information identified in this AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250) 656-0673; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information 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 action removes the Class E airspace at Coalgate, OK. The FAA is taking this action due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at the associated airport, and the airspace no longer being required.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mary Hurley Hospital Heliport, Coalgate, OK, due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at this airport, and the airspace no longer being required.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR 71 removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mary Hurley Hospital Heliport, Coalgate, OK.
This action is the result of the instrument procedures at this airport
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Borger, TX; Pampa, TX; and Spearman, TX. These actions are due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Borger very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational Network (MON) Program. The names and geographic coordinates of some airports are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hutchinson County Airport, Borger, TX; Perry Lefors Field, Pampa, TX; and Major Samuel B. Cornelius Field, Spearman, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR 71:
Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hutchinson County Airport, Borger, TX, by removing the Borger VORTAC and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; removes the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of the Perry Lefors Field, Pampa, TX; and removes the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N;
And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Major Samuel B. Cornelius Field, Spearman, TX, by updating the name (previously Spearman Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
These actions are due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Borger VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Hutchinson County Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Perry Lefors Field.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Major Samuel B. Cornelius Field.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class D and Class E airspace at Mansfield, OH. The FAA is taking this action due to a biennial airspace review. The geographic coordinates of the Mansfield VORTAC are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
Amends the Class D airspace at Mansfield Lahm Municipal Airport, Mansfield, OH, by removing the Mansfield VORTAC and associated extension from the airspace legal description as they are no longer needed; and replaces the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions” and “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;
Amends the Class E surface airspace at Mansfield Lahm Municipal Airport by removing the Mansfield VORTAC and associated extension from the airspace legal description as they are no longer needed; and adds missing part-time language to the airspace legal description;
And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mansfield Lahm Municipal Airport by removing the extensions to the southeast, northwest, and southwest of the airport from the airspace legal description as they are no longer needed; amends the extension northeast of the airport to within 2 (decreased from 4) miles each side of the 047° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius of the airport to 8.9 (decreased from 11.2) miles northeast of the airport; amends the extension southeast of the VORTAC to within 9.9 miles northeast and 6.1 miles southwest (previously 4.4 miles each side) of the Mansfield VORTAC 133° (previously 130°) radial extending from the 6.9-mile radius of the airport to 19 (increased from 13.8) miles southeast of the VORTAC; amends the extension northwest of the VORTAC to within 9.9 miles southwest and 6.1 miles northeast (previously 6.1 miles each side) of the Mansfield VORTAC 310° (previously 307°) radial extending from the 6.9-mile radius of the airport to 10 (decreased from 13.3) miles northwest of the VORTAC; removes the cities associated with the airports in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updates the geographic coordinates of the Mansfield VORTAC to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is due to a biennial airspace review.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending from the surface to and including 3,800 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of the Mansfield Lahm Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Air Missions. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Within a 4.4-mile radius of Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 047° bearing from Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.9 miles northeast of the airport; and within 9.9 miles northeast and 6.1 miles southwest of the Mansfield VORTAC 133° radial extending from the 6.9-mile radius of Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport to 19 miles southeast of the Mansfield VORTAC; and within 9.9 miles southwest and 6.1 miles northeast of the Mansfield VORTAC 310° radial extending from the 6.9-mile radius of Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport to 10 miles northwest of the Mansfield VORTAC; and within a 6.3-mile radius of Galion Municipal Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Shelby Community Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Willard Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Harnett Regional Jetport, Erwin, NC, by updating the airport's name and geographic coordinates. This action also eliminates the Harnett non-directional beacon from the airspace description, as an airspace evaluation found it unnecessary. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace for Harnett Regional Jetport, Erwin, NC, to support IFR operations in the area.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Harnett Regional Jetport, Erwin, NC, by updating the airport's name (formerly Harnett County Airport), and removing the city name from the description header. This action also eliminates the Harnett NDB from the airspace description, as an airspace evaluation found it unnecessary. Also, this action widens the northeast extension and updates the airport's geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. In addition, this action removes reference of the Fayetteville, NC, class E airspace area from the description, as the airspace is shared.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
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)
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a.
This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Harnett Regional Jetport, and within 2.6-miles each side of the 042° bearing of the airport, extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 8.6-miles northeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Coldwater and Sturgis, MI. This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Litchfield very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airports are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Branch County Memorial Airport, Coldwater, MI, and Kirsch Municipal Airport, Sturgis, MI, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (decreased from an 8.1-mile) radius of Branch County Memorial Airport, Coldwater, MI; removes the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updates the geographic
And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Kirsch Municipal Airport, MI; adds an extension 2.5 miles each side of the 052° bearing from the Sturgis NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northeast of the NDB; adds an extension 2.5 miles each side of the 341° bearing from the Sturgis NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the NDB; removes the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Litchfield VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Branch County Memorial Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Kirsch Municipal Airport; and within 2.5 miles each side of the 052° bearing from the Sturgis NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northeast of the Sturgis NDB; and within 2.5 miles each side of the 341° bearing from the Sturgis NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the Sturgis NDB.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule adjusts for inflation of certain service fees accruing to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as provided for in BOEM regulations.
This rule is effective on November 1, 2022.
Peter Meffert, Office of Regulation, at (703) 787-1610 or by email at
BOEM's regulations at 30 CFR 550.125 and 30 CFR 556.106 provide the authority for BOEM to periodically adjust a number of its service fees according to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product by publication of a document in the
These service fees were last updated in a
This rule adjusts the service fees in accordance with BOEM's regulations at 30 CFR 550.125 and 30 CFR 556.106. The new 2022 fee amounts are based on an inflation rate of 18.36 percent as calculated by the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product between 2012 and 2021.
The inflation rate between any two years is calculated as the percentage difference between the measure of prices for a designated year (
The inflation rate was calculated by dividing the deflator from 2021 by the deflator from 2012, and then subtracting one. For example, using the data in the table below from BEA's table 1.1.9, with the base year set to 2012, the inflation multiplier was calculated as 118.36/100.00)−1 = 18.36 percent.
The following table summarizes the change in cost recovery fees from 2012 to 2022 using the calculated inflation rate multiplier:
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB will review all significant rules. BOEM has determined that this rule is not significant because it does not meet any relevant financial threshold or raise any legal or policy issues.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. BOEM has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements to the extent permitted by statute.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804) because it:
(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by this act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O.D 12988. Specifically, this 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.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with the Tribes and a recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. BOEM evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual part 512, chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175. BOEM determined that this rule has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of a financial nature. BOEM also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A “Statement of Energy Effects” is not required.
E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), and the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, require that all rules will be written in plain language. This means that each rule must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and 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 BOEM has not met these requirements, send your comments to Peter Meffert at
The Administrative Procedure Act provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). BOEM finds good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing an opportunity for public notice and comment because BOEM has specific authority under existing regulations to periodically adjust a number of its service fees according to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product by publication of a document in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Federal lands, Government contracts, Investigations, Mineral resources, Oil and gas exploration, Outer continental shelf, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way, Sulfur.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental protection, Federal lands, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Oil and gas exploration, Outer continental shelf, Mineral resources, Rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, BOEM hereby amends 30 CFR parts 550 and 556 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(a) The table in this paragraph (a) shows the fees that you must pay to BOEM for the services listed. The fees will be adjusted periodically according
30 U.S.C. 1701 note, 30 U.S.C. 1711, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 42 U.S.C. 6213, 43 U.S.C. 1331 note, 43 U.S.C. 1334, 43 U.S.C. 1801-1802.
(a) The table in this paragraph (a) shows the fees you must pay to BOEM for the services listed. BOEM will adjust the fees periodically according to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product and publish a document showing the adjustment in the
Department of Defense (DoD) Office of General Counsel, DoD.
Final rule.
DoD is publishing this rule to finalize the implementation of requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 permitting members of the uniformed services or their authorized representatives to file claims for personal injury or death caused by a Department of Defense health care provider in certain military medical treatment facilities. Because Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to consider these claims, DoD is issuing this rule to provide uniform standards and procedures for considering and processing these actions.
This final rule is in effect September 26, 2022.
Melissa D. Walters, (703) 681-6027,
Signed into law on December 20, 2019, section 731 of the 2020 NDAA allows members of the uniformed services or their authorized representatives to file claims for personal injury or death caused by a DoD health care provider in certain military medical treatment facilities.
Historically, members of the armed forces have been unable to bring suit against the government under the
A substantiated claim of up to $100,000 will be paid directly to the Service member or his/her estate by DoD. The Treasury Department will review and pay claims that the Secretary of Defense values at more than $100,000. Service members must present a claim that is received by DoD within two years after the claim accrues. However, the statute allowed Service
Based on section 731 of the NDAA, this rule finalizes in Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations a new part 45, Medical Malpractice Claims by Members of the Uniformed Services. Title 10 U.S.C. 2733a(f) sets forth the required contents of the rule. This rule describes the claims process, which includes: the claimant's submission of information to initiate a medical malpractice claim; the claimant's response to an adjudicator's request for new information required to substantiate the claim or to determine damages; an Initial Determination issued by DoD; the opportunity for a claimant to seek reconsideration of damage calculations in the case of clear error; and, in most cases, the opportunity for a claimant to file an administrative appeal.
Claims will be adjudicated based on uniform national standards consistent with generally accepted standards used in a majority of States in adjudicating claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671
An interim final rule was published in the
The Department received a number of comments that were outside of the scope of the interim final rule.
Some comments included or consisted of personal narratives from Service members or their family members about specific medical care received from DoD. To the extent these individuals or their representatives believe that malpractice occurred, they may follow procedures in the final rule to submit a claim for adjudication.
A number of comments sought to have DoD establish an independent review or appellate process by what was described as a disinterested party or body or a third party, including review by a Federal court. One commenter recommended review through a body similar to the Independent Review Commission established by DoD to make recommendations for addressing sexual assault. Some commenters linked the lack of such a process with a lack of transparency. A law firm recommended review of DoD's final decision by a court, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Some commenters were concerned DoD would not follow its own procedures or the law in the absence of judicial review. Several commenters indicated that DoD would be able to make unconstitutional decisions in the absence of court review.
Title 10 U.S.C. 2733a does not include a provision for third-party or court review. Rather, the statute calls for the Secretary of Defense to allow, settle, and pay covered medical malpractice claims. The process established by the Department to implement Title 10 U.S.C. 2733a is intended to be non-adversarial. The Department has attempted to minimize claimant costs by not requiring expensive expert reports up front and affording claimants an opportunity to submit additional evidence prior to denial of a claim and, if deemed meritorious, in support of damages. The discussion below addresses adjustments made by the Department in the final rule in response to comments to increase the amount of information provided to claimants.
A few comments addressed DoD's Regulatory Analysis. One merely described the analysis as bold without more. Another generally described DoD's projections in unfavorable terms without making any recommendations. Other comments recommended that the Government Accountability Office investigate the number of deaths or disabilities incurred in non-combat healthcare settings since the United States Supreme Court decided
A Member of Congress and some consumer advocacy groups requested that DoD pause adjudication of medical malpractice claims until the final rule has been issued. To have done so, however, would have been contrary to 10 U.S.C. 2733a(f)(3), which required DoD to prescribe an interim final rule.
Other comments outside the scope of the interim final rule were comments about the adequacy of medical coverage and disability benefits offered to the military through DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); a comment about VA forms; a comment about the cost of life insurance; a comment about DoD's medical records system; a comment about separations through the Disability Evaluation System that the commenter believed were premature; a comment about the time taken by DoD to issue the interim final rule; issues with the medical quality assurance process and the Healthcare Resolutions Program; objections to certain medical procedures performed by DoD; comments by a Service members' organization regarding the development of the interim final rule; timeliness of responses to requests under the Freedom of Information Act; views about conditions contributing to malpractice claims and the adequacy of funding appropriated by Congress to pay claims; whether a rule about concurrent receipt of retirement and disability pay was fair; and the DoD bureaucracy in general.
Some comments were general and therefore non-actionable, such as one individual's general reference to bringing clarity to the interim final rule without any specifics being provided. Other comments referred generally to making changes to remove unspecified limits and restrictions, non-specific concerns about transparency, and statements that the interim final rule exceeded DoD's statutory authority without specifics.
One comment included questions for DoD about the source of funds used to pay claims and what statistics showed about the cost of malpractice claims. Providing answers to these questions is not within the scope of this regulatory process. We note that the sources of funding are established by statute. A substantiated claim of up to $100,000 will be paid directly to the claimant or the claimant's estate by DoD. The Treasury Department will review and
Members of the uniformed services and their representatives are subject to the requirements of Title 10 U.S.C. 2733a(b)(1). Thus, the final regulation does not permit derivative claims by family members or other claims from third parties alleging a separate injury such as loss of consortium as a result of harm to a member of the uniformed services. Family members of uniformed service members who believe they have been subjected to malpractice themselves may bring malpractice claims under different statutory provisions—either the FTCA or, if outside the United States, under the MCA.
Two commenters indicated that it was unfair that claimants' lawyers could not obtain access to all of DoD's records regarding claimants' medical treatment. A law firm commented that limiting claimants to their own medical records and records obtained via public records requests prevented claimants from discovering material evidence. An individual made a comment suggesting that DoD limited an individual's right to use counsel to obtain medical records and expressed concern about the time to obtain those records. Some commenters sought access to medical quality assurance records related to the healthcare provided to the claimant. One individual commented that the process lacked transparency because claimants would lack access to material that was protected by privilege, such as information protected by attorney-client privilege or medical quality assurance information.
The administrative adjudication of claims under this authority was intended to be non-adversarial. It is also consistent with the administrative adjudication of claims under the MCA, 10 U.S.C. 2733. Court-like discovery such as depositions and written interrogatories, and even “discovery-like” processes such as informal interviews, are contrary to that intent
DoD agrees that claimants should be informed of the basis for an offer of settlement or informed why their claim is denied. As discussed more fully under Section 45.12: Initial and Final Determinations, in response to comments about access to information, DoD has modified Sections 45.12 and 45.13. DoD has added language to Sections 45.12 and 45.13 to ensure that claimants are provided with a meaningful basis for an offer of settlement or are provided a meaningful explanation for the denial of a claim that includes the specific basis for the denial.
DoD added language to paragraph 45.4(d) to include additional actions that may be taken by DoD in connection with substantiating a claim, such as interviews of health care providers.
DoD made no changes in response to the comment seeking medical quality assurance information, as DoD may not lawfully disclose this information in this context under 10 U.S.C. 1102.
If DoD has already determined that the standard of care was not met in a particular circumstance before a claim is filed, DoD would be able to engage with the claimant to determine an appropriate amount to offer in settlement without requiring any additional information to substantiate the claim.
DoD would determine whether health care providers were acting in furtherance of their duties in the military medical treatment facility. Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1094(d) mandates that, notwithstanding any State law regarding the licensure of health care providers, designated licensed individual providers may practice their profession in any location in any jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of where the provider or patient is located, so long as the practice is within the scope of the provider's authorized federal duties. This includes telemedicine providers.
DoD administratively modified the first sentence of Section 45.7(d)(2) to
Commenters, including some Members of Congress, consumer groups, and a lawyers' association commented that while a majority of States capped non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, an average of the caps in these States did not account for the fact that other States did not cap non-economic damages. Two Members of Congress commented that some States had tiered or categorized caps that allowed higher caps in cases involving severe injury or death and that DoD should consider the higher limit in these systems. One Member of Congress estimated that this would result in a limit of at least $800,000. Members of Congress indicated the Department should factor in inflation and should retroactively reopen and adjust those claims settled before issuance of the final rule.
Several commenters interpreted the rule to mean that 26 states had non-economic damage caps of $500,000 and indicated this was incorrect based on their own research. One individual indicated the cap of $500,000 was too low based on a description of an incident caused by what the individual believes to have been medical malpractice. A law firm and a lawyers' association indicated that the FTCA had no limit on damages. The lawyers' association indicated that caps on non-economic damages placed Service members at a disadvantage compared to those whose damages were not capped under the FTCA or the MCA, are unfair to Service members living in States with no cap, and did not adequately compensate those with the most severe injuries. Consumer groups stated that only 23 States have laws expressly capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases and some States provide exceptions for serious injury or death.
Consumer groups commented that caps on non-economic damages have a disproportionate impact on women because of the types of injuries women are likely to experience such as sexual or reproductive harm or pregnancy loss.
The cap of $600,000 represents DoD's best approximation of the current average of the caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases in those States having caps and it is consistent with the median amount. States have varying formulas for determining caps on non-economic damages and the $600,000 cap takes into account current state law in this regard. Some States periodically increase their non-economic damage caps to account for inflation, and the final rule takes these increases into account and retains the requirement for periodic updates to the cap to account for inflationary increases.
Where a State had a higher cap for more serious injuries or death, DoD used that cap, in an effort for balance with those States that appeared to allow a higher, unspecified amount in cases involving more serious injuries or death. Three States appear to have caps on noneconomic damages that combine economic and non-economic damages together under one cap. For these States, DoD used one-half the total cap in the calculation of the average on the assumption that cases involving more serious injuries or death likely would have greater economic damages, eroding the amount available for non-economic damages. Commenters did not provide a basis for calculating the proposed $1,000,000 or $3,000,000 caps. DoD cannot arbitrarily adopt a proposed cap unsupported by an articulable legal basis for doing so and, in any event, must apply generally accepted standards used in a majority of States.
DoD did not modify the interim final rule to allow reopening and adjustment of claims settled before publication of the final rule to apply the higher damages cap. Congress required the interim final rule in 10 U.S.C. 2733a(f)(3) “in order to implement expeditiously” the provisions of that section and was aware claims might be settled before the final rule was issued. There is no basis for reopening settled claims under 10 U.S.C. 2733a, which does not permit DoD to pay claims unless the amount tendered is accepted by the claimant in full satisfaction.
Individuals, Service members' organizations, and unions, referencing the collateral source rule, indicated that DoD should award the cost of health care services provided or paid for by DoD or the VA as part of economic damages. The Service members' organization believed not doing so would discourage Service members from filing claims. A lawyers' association stated that courts had found the amounts of future medical payment. such as from TRICARE indeterminable. An individual and a lawyers' association indicated that individuals might not want to receive care from government health care providers for the injuries they sustained. One commenter was concerned about TRICARE's solvency and ability to cover a Service member's lifetime medical needs. Another commenter was concerned that Service members would have issues with obtaining needed care through TRICARE or the VA and that the VA might not approve needed benefits or might not approve benefits in a timely fashion. A commenter believed it would eliminate work for DoD if DoD eliminated offsets versus periodically conducting a review of offsets for purposes of making changes.
Several commenters erroneously questioned the inclusion of Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) payments as an offset. Several commenters believed that offsets could limit a Service member from getting benefits to which that Service member was entitled and another believed that the compensation system would involve “recouping” benefits paid by the VA. A commenter incorrectly seemed to suggest that DoD would assume remarriage for purposes of determining offsets.
One commenter questioned whether the fact that the non-exhaustive listings of programs that did or did not offset potential malpractice damage awards would allow claimants to know what was included and thought this might be difficult to ascertain.
A lawyers' association commented that the government should bear the burden of proof with respect to offsets.
Moreover, as explained in the preamble to the interim final rule, Federal law provides a comprehensive system of compensation for military members and their families in cases of death or disability incurred in military service. This system applies to all causes of death or disability incurred in service, whether due to combat injuries, training mishaps, motor vehicle accidents, naturally occurring illnesses, household events, or malpractice with limited exceptions (
Nothing in the rule precludes Service members in any way from receiving benefits to which they are entitled. SGLI is listed specifically in Section 45.11(g) as a payment and benefit that is not an offset from economic and non-economic damages. It was not included as an offset because it is a benefit for which Service members have paid premiums. Nothing in the rule would permit “recoupment” of benefits already provided to Service members. The rule also states that DoD will not assume remarriage with respect to any lifetime payments or benefits that may terminate upon the remarriage of a surviving spouse.
Finally, but most importantly, DoD has a robust Clinical Quality Management Program which operates independently of medical malpractice claims by Service members or others (under DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6025.13
With regard to the comment that the listings of programs that did or did not offset potential malpractice damage awards was not all-inclusive, an illustrative list was included in the rule because benefit programs are numerous and are subject to frequent changes by law or regulation. The rule allows for a process. DoD contemplates a process for determining damages that involves exchanges of information to ensure accuracy, so claimants would be informed about those damages during that time or through Initial or Final Determinations.
DoD did not adopt a requirement for DoD to confirm receipt of Initial Determinations. The interim final rule adopted a presumption of receipt for the convenience of both the Service member and DoD and to provide flexibility with respect to delivery methods. The interim final rule adopted a lenient standard for overcoming the presumption: the date of receipt is presumed to be five calendar days after mailing or emailing unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Although DoD may elect to use a delivery method confirming receipt, email “return receipts” are not always reliable and certified mail may be inconvenient for Service members who are not at home when delivery is attempted. A presumption of receipt establishes a clear and fixed date for calculating time and reduces administrative burden. A presumption of receipt is consistent with practices in some other judicial and administrative bodies, such as the Federal courts
Even though DoD is not adopting a requirement to confirm receipt of delivery, in response to the comment, DoD revisited the length of time for presumption of delivery. The United States Postal Service is changing its target for first class mail delivery from 1-3 days to 1-5 days.
DoD administratively added language in Section 45.12(a)(1) to clarify that it is the DoD Component that issued the Initial Determination that acts on requests for extension of time relating to deficient filings. DoD also administratively added language to Section 45.12(d)(4) to clarify that the DoD Component that issued the Initial Determination will review alleged clear error in connection with requests for reconsideration. These changes make it clear that these processes are not conducted by the Appeals Board.
DoD administratively clarified in Section 45.12(c)(1) that it is the DoD Component which issued the Initial Determination that grants an extension of time for good cause.
DoD administratively clarified in Section 45.13(a) that it is the DoD Component which issued the Initial Determination that grants an extension of time for good cause and not the Appeals Board.
The public comments received were not relevant to the RIA; therefore, DoD is finalizing the RIA with no further revisions.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health. and safety effects; distribution of impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action, although
This interim final rule implements requirements of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020 permitting members of the uniformed services or their authorized representatives to file claims for personal injury or death caused by a DoD health care provider in certain military medical treatment facilities. Because Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to consider these claims, DoD is issuing this rule to provide uniform standards and procedures for considering and processing these actions administratively.
At the end of Fiscal Year 2019, there were approximately 1,400,000 Active Duty, 390,000 Reserve and National Guard, and 250,000 other uniformed Service members eligible for DoD healthcare benefits or around 19% of the total eligible beneficiary population. These uniformed Service members will be able to file claims with DoD alleging malpractice. There were approximately 8,140,000 other eligible beneficiaries to include retirees, retiree family members, and family members of Active Duty Service members. These other eligible beneficiaries currently may file claims with DoD alleging malpractice.
As a result of the rule, individuals who believe they were subjected to malpractice may consider filing a claim. In determining whether to file a claim, individuals may consult with medical professionals and attorneys and we assume that most claimants will have attorneys. We estimate that this will require 5 hours for individuals to locate an attorney, view and download pertinent medical records, and discuss the case with an attorney (or a medical professional for claimants without attorneys). At a mean hourly rate of $27.07 based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the cost of this activity is $135.
The cost for a consultation with a medical professional, whether directly by the claimant or through an attorney varies by the type of professional. Based upon information available from consultations and reports obtained in malpractice claims against the government and estimates of time spent by DoD in similar activity when handling those claims, we estimate a typical review of records would take about 3 to 5 hours (and include reviewing journals in support of the professional's opinion), with an additional 2 to 4 hours to write a report (if such a report is submitted with a claim, which is not required). The Department will assume for purposes of this analysis that the same type of professional would be consulted as the professional against whom the malpractice is alleged (
The cost to a Service member or an authorized representative for the filing itself will vary based on the amount of information the Service member includes with his or her filing. A basic letter stating the factual basis for the claim and including a demand for a specified dollar amount would cost the claimant postage ($0.55 per claim, or $27.50 for an estimated 50 claims) and possibly minimal photocopying. Claimants will likely choose to use certified mail, requiring additional postage of $3.35 per claim (or $167.50 for an estimated 50 claims per year). Two affidavits are likely required, one containing a statement from the claimant indicating he or she consulted with a health care professional and obtained an opinion from that health care professional that the medical standard of care was breached and one affirming that a representative is authorized to represent the claimant. Those entitled to legal assistance under 10 U.S.C. 1044 (such as Active Duty Service members, retired Service members, and survivors) would be able to obtain notarial services at no cost. Most likely, those filing claims would fall into one of these categories and so could obtain notarial services at no cost. However, this rule results in societal costs associated with these notarial services. We estimate that notarial services will require the equivalent of 20 minutes of paralegal time. Using BLS data, and adjusting upward by 100 percent to account for overhead and benefits to arrive at an hourly rate of $54.44 implies $18.14 in costs per claim. Finally, although not required, a claimant could submit any other information he or she chooses, which would result in a variable cost. DoD assumes that pertinent medical records outside its system would be fairly recent and could be accessed via web portals, resulting in a cost to the claimant of only the cost of printing and postage. If the claimant elects to submit receipts, the claimant would need to pay the cost of printing or photocopying, as well as postage.
In 2020, DoD received 149 malpractice claims filed by Active Duty beneficiaries under the process in this part and 173 malpractice claims filed by other beneficiaries under either the FTCA or MCA. Section 2733a(b)(4) requires claims to be presented to DoD within two years after the claim accrues, although section 731 of the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA allowed claims accruing in 2017 to be filed in 2020. In future years, when three years' worth of claim filings are not compressed in the same year and the requirement for consultation with a health care professional in certain circumstances in advance of filing takes effect, DoD would anticipate around 50 claims per year. Based on information related to malpractice claims not filed after consideration, we estimate that 90% of the claims considered by individuals and their attorneys will not be filed. As a result, we estimate that 500 claims will be considered, and that 50 claims will be filed by Service members per year.
The categories of costs for considered claims are described above. In sum, we estimate costs of $2,822 to $5,735 per claim. This implies total costs of $1,401,102 to $2,857,602 each year for considered claims.
Next, we estimate costs associated with processing claims. Many steps in processing a claim will be the same for DoD whether or not the claim has merit. Based on activity in non-medical malpractice claims, we anticipate 3 hours of paralegal time for activities such as logging in claims, sending acknowledgment letters, mailing certified letters containing the outcome of a claim, drafting vouchers for payment, and filing/data entry. Assuming a GS-11 paralegal at the step 5 salary rate of $81,634 based on the 2020 Washington, DC, locality pay table (an hourly rate of $39.12) and the total value of labor including wages, benefits, and overhead being equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, the cost for this
Of these 50 claims, for purposes of this analysis, based on historical malpractice claims data involving non-Service members, we assume 27% of claimants will have claims for which DoD determines malpractice occurred, or 14 claims. For these claims, based on time spent by DoD on the damages portion of current malpractice claims against the government, DoD estimates claimants' attorneys and DoD attorneys will spend 6-8 hours respectively on matters pertaining to damages. This results in a cost per claim of $859 to $1,145 for claimants' attorneys and $748 to $997 for DoD attorneys.
Of submitted claims, DoD estimates that claimants will appeal all claims that do not result in a payment of damages, resulting in 36 appeals annually. Note that this is described in more detail in the transfers section. We estimate it will take around the same amount of time spent on initial determination activities for appeal activities, or 17-26 hours per claim for both claimants' attorneys (at a cost of $2,434 to $3,723) and DoD attorneys (at a cost of $2,081 to $3,184) and 3 hours per claim by DoD paralegals (at a cost of $235). This implies total annual costs of $171,000 to $257,112 for appeals.
As a result, we estimate total annual processing costs for these 50 claims to be $309,284 to $458,036.
In summary, total estimated annual costs of this interim final rule are $1,710,386 to $3,315,638.
Regardless of the number of claims in which malpractice occurred, the only claims in which damages will be awarded are those which exceed the offsets for any payment to be made. Subject to some exceptions such as insurance benefits for which Service members have paid premiums, benefits received through the DoD and VA comprehensive compensation system applicable to all injuries and deaths will be applied as an offset in calculating malpractice damages to prevent a double recovery. Because of these offsets, regardless of the number of claims filed, the only claims pertinent for purposes of payments made by the government are those that would exceed applicable offsets.
We estimate 7 claims per year will result in additional payments made to individuals, which is the number of claims anticipated to involve additional payments after offsets are applied. To help explain how we reached this estimate, we prepared the following tables as notional examples to illustrate what benefits are available under the existing comprehensive compensation system, both those that are offset and those that are not, and the value of these benefits in Fiscal Year 2020. In addition to the benefits in the above tables, disability retirees and survivors receive healthcare for life through TRICARE. In Fiscal Year 2020, based on information from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the average value of the TRICARE benefit for an under-65 retiree family of three was $14,600 per year. Benefits provided through the Social Security Administration, such as Social Security disability benefits and Social Security survivor benefits, are also in addition to the above tables. Calculations in the tables were provided by the Office of Military Compensation Policy, within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
We
We then estimated the number of claims likely to exceed $1.1 million using claims data from non-Service member claims under the FTCA or MCA. In 2019 and 2020, the Military Departments had 14 claims from retirees or dependents under the FTCA or MCA with damages that exceeded $1.1 million, whether through settlement or an adverse court judgment. The average amount payable for these 14 claims over 2 years was approximately $2.7 million. In one year, therefore, we estimate that 7 claims by Service members would go forward that exceed the $1.1 million threshold for payable damages. Assuming 7 claims per year going forward exceeding $1.1 million, and average damages of $1.6 million (the difference between the average amount of $2.7 million paid per claim in the non-Active Duty claims and the estimated $1.1 million in offsets per Service member claim), the additional payments made by the U.S. Government because of section 731 are estimated to be $11.2 million per year. Of this, the first $100,000 for each claim would be paid by DoD and the remainder paid by the Treasury Department, for an estimated total of $0.7 million to be paid by DoD based on 7 claims and $1.05 million to be paid by the Treasury Department.
As the tables above illustrate, Government paid benefits would not be a factor, as this claims process would have no impact on what the benefits Service member is already receiving, has received, or is entitled to receive in the future based on his or her injuries.
Total transfers from the U.S. government to claimants are estimated to be $11.2 million per year.
Absent the claims process established by section 731, Service members would not have the opportunity for potential monetary payments above the amounts they currently receive through current DoD and VA benefits. In addition to providing an additional potential compensation remedy, the claims process reinforces DoD Clinical Quality Management Program procedures for appropriate accountability of DoD health care providers. National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) reporting includes cases where DoD compensation is paid through the Disability Evaluation System or survivor benefits attributable to medical malpractice by a DoD health care provider and now, under this part, paid malpractice claims. Reports to the NPDB are accompanied by reports to State licensing boards and certifying agencies of the health care providers involved. The claims process further provides an opportunity for DoD to identify opportunities for improvement in the delivery of healthcare, potentially preventing harm to others based upon measures taken by DoD as a result of a claim even if the claim does not result in the payment of monetary damages. Finally, this process is only applicable in certain cases of medical malpractice.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it is not a notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
This final rule does not impose requirements on small entities.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require non-Federal spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This final rule does not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor affect private sector costs.
It has been determined that this final rule does not impose new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This final rule does not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.
Medical, Malpractice, Claims, Uniformed Services.
Accordingly, the interim final rule adding 32 CFR part 45 which was published at 86 FR 32194-32215 on June 17, 2021 is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:
10 U.S.C. 2733a.
(b) * * *
(5) If the claimant is not represented by an attorney, unless the alleged medical malpractice is within the general knowledge and experience of ordinary laypersons, an affidavit from the claimant affirming that the claimant consulted with a health care professional who opined that a DoD health care provider breached the standard of care that caused the alleged harm. Alternatively, if the claimant is represented by an attorney, unless the alleged medical malpractice is within the general knowledge and experience of ordinary laypersons, the claim must include an affidavit from the attorney affirming that the attorney consulted with a health care professional who opined that a DoD health care provider breached the standard of care that caused the alleged harm.
(d)
(e)
(d) * * *
(2) DoD may consider medical quality assurance records relevant to the health care provided to the patient. DoD's Clinical Quality Management Program features reviews of many circumstances of clinical care. Results of any such reviews of the care involved in the claim that occurred before or after the claim was filed may be considered by DoD in the adjudication of the claim. As required by 10 U.S.C. 1102, DoD medical quality assurance records are confidential. While such records may be used by DoD, any information contained in or derived from such records may not be disclosed to the claimant.
(c)
(a)
(a) * * *
(1) DoD will provide the claimant 90 calendar days following receipt of the Initial Determination to cure the deficiency, unless an extension of time is granted for good cause by the DoD Component which issued the Initial Determination. The date of receipt of the Initial Determination will be presumed to be seven calendar days after the date the Initial Determination was mailed or emailed, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
(c)
(1) DoD will provide the claimant 90 calendar days following receipt of the Initial Determination by the claimant or, if the claimant is represented, by the claimant's representative, to submit an expert report, unless an extension of time is granted for good cause. The date of receipt of the Initial Determination will be presumed to be seven calendar days after the date the Initial Determination was mailed or emailed, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
(2) If the claimant does not timely submit an expert report, DoD will issue a Final Determination denying the claim. A Final Determination issued under this paragraph (c) may not be appealed.
(d) * * *
(2) The Initial Determination may be in the form of a certified letter and/or an email. The Initial Determination may take the form of a grant of a claim and an offer of settlement or a denial of the claim. Subject to applicable confidentiality requirements, such as 10 U.S.C. 1102, privileged information, and paragraph (a) of this section, DoD will provide a meaningful basis for an offer of settlement or will provide a meaningful explanation for the denial of a claim that includes the specific basis for the denial.
(4) The claimant may request reconsideration of the damages calculation contained in an Initial Determination if, within the time otherwise allowed to file an administrative appeal, the claimant identifies an alleged clear error—a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed—in the damages calculation. The DoD Component that issued the Initial Determination will review the alleged clear error and will issue an Initial Determination on Reconsideration either granting or denying reconsideration of the Initial Determination and adjusting the damages calculation, if appropriate. The Initial Determination on Reconsideration will include information on the claimant's right to appeal under the procedures in § 45.13.
(a)
(b)
(d) * * * (1) Every claimant will be provided a written Final Determination on the claimant's appeal. The Final Determination may adopt by reference the Initial Determination or revise the Initial Determination, as appropriate. If the Final Determination revises the Initial Determination, DoD will provide a meaningful explanation of the basis for the revisions.
(f)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Ohio River from Mile 90.3 to Mile 91.8 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a floating lantern tribute. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
This rule is effective on August 31, 2022, from 6 p.m. through 8 p.m.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST2 David Deaton, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be established by August 31, 2022, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the raw water intake construction and compromise public safety.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the lanterns on August 31, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone within a Mile Markers 90.3 to 91.8. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 6 through 8 p.m. on August 31, 2022. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters on the Ohio River from Mile 90.3 to Mile 91.8. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a floating lantern tribute.
No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone impacts only a one-and-a-half-mile stretch of the Ohio River for a short amount of time of two hours on one evening. Vessel traffic will be informed about the safety zone through local notices to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP to transit the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting two hours that will prohibit entry on the Ohio River from mile 90.3 to mile 91.8, during the floating lantern tribute. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP's representative may be contacted at 412-670-4288.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters of the Potomac River at National Harbor, MD, on September 3, 2022 (with alternate date of September 4, 2022), from potential hazards during a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on September 3, 2022, through 11 p.m. on September 4, 2022. This rule will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on September 3, 2022, or in the event of inclement weather on September 3, 2022, those same hours on September 4, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST2 Courtney Perry, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2596, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because we must take immediate action to establish this safety zone by September 3, 2022, to respond to potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display. Potential safety hazards include the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The determination that a safety zone was necessary was not made until August 19, 2022.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this September 3, 2022, display will be a safety concern for anyone near these fireworks discharge sites. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on September 3, 2022. The zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 3, 2022 or, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 4, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 feet of a barge in the Potomac River located in approximate position latitude 38°47′01.60″ N, longitude 077°01′17.66″ W, at National Harbor, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on size, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of the Potomac River for a total of no more than 2.5 hours of total enforcement-hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 26.5 hours that will prohibit entry within 500 feet of a barge within a portion of the Potomac River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones for certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT), linking Southeastern Virginia to the Eastern Shore, during an already ongoing construction project on the CBBT. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from operating within 500 feet of the construction area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Virginia or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from September 26, 2022, through January 31, 2027.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Sector Virginia, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Telephone: (757) 668-5581; Email:
In December, 2021, the COTP was notified by project management for the Parallel Thimble Shoals Tunnel Project that construction work in vicinity of the CBBT's southern two islands, South Thimble Island and North Thimble Island, creates hazards to the maritime public and recommended the establishment of safety zones. Hazards include the operation of heavy machinery and loads suspended by cranes over the waters surrounding the islands and attached structures. Specifically, safety concerns were raised that involved kayakers and vessels fishing in the vicinity of the construction site despite posted signs indicating not to approach the site within 500 feet. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the construction equipment used in this project creates a safety concern for those transiting within 500 feet of the project site. This construction project has been ongoing for 4 years, workers are present at all hours and the work is projected to continue for the next 5 years. In response, on April 8, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zones for Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel; Chesapeake Bay, VA” (87 FR 20796). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to the bridge construction. During the comment period that ended May 23, 2022, we received no comments.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Virginia (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge tunnel construction project will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-feet in all direction from the edge of both South Thimble Island and North Thimble Island. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone at all times while construction equipment is present.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 8, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes two temporary safety zones extending 500 feet in all directions from the edge of both South Thimble Island and North Thimble Island. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on its minimal impact to the local economy, as any fishery needing to use these waters can be accommodated by the two other man-made islands approximately 5 miles to the north and the attached 15 miles of bridge trestle which are not covered with construction equipment, and therefore will not be covered by these safety zones.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones to protect the public from hazards created by ongoing construction work. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(1) Any waters located within 500 feet in all directions from the edge of South Thimble Island. South Thimble Island is located approximately 3.3 miles north of the shores of Virginia Beach on Highway 13, also known as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT).
(2) Any waters located within 500 feet in all directions from the edge of North Thimble Island. North Thimble Island is located approximately 4.5 miles north of Virginia Beach on Highway 13.
(b)
(c)
(2) Mariners requesting to transit any of these safety zones must first contact the CTJV designated representatives, CTJV Marine General Superintendant by phone at 361-244-8852, CTJV Safety Director at 702-415-8600, or CTJV Construction Manager at 757-782-7741. CTJV will be monitoring VHF-FM channels 13 and 16 while work is ongoing. If permission is granted, mariners must proceed at their own risk and strictly observe any and all instructions provided by the COTP, or designated representative, to the mariner regarding the conditions of entry to and exit from any location within the fixed safety zones.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters directly surrounding the northern half of the I-75 Bridge over the Maumee River. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by demolition of the bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. on August 27, 2022, through 11:30 p.m. on August 28, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the party conducting the work notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by August 27, 2022.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge demolition occurring between August 27, 2022-August 28, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone transiting near the I-75 bridge on the Maumee River. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge is being demolished.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on August 27, 2022. In the case of inclement weather on August 27, 2022, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on August 28, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters 500 feet up and down river from surface to bottom, below the old Michael V. DiSalle Memorial (I-75) Bridge located at 41°37′31.2″ N 83°32′31.1″ W. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the bridge is being demolished. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry into the waters 500 feet up and down river of the Michael V. DiSalle Memorial (I-75) Bridge while it is demolished. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
(3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so at least 30 minutes prior to transit. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
(c)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Tennessee River extending from mile marker 169—172. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the salvage operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on August 29, 2022, through 4 p.m. on August 31, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Joshua Rehl, MSD Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-5421, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the salvage operations from August 29 through August 31, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone within mile marker 169-172. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the salvage operations are taking place.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on August 29 through August 31, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within mile markers 169-172. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the salvage operations are being conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the location of the event on the Tennessee River lasting only 8 hours each day.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, this rule will only last 8 hours, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by 502-779-5422 or on VHR-FM channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising certain administrative deadlines under seven allowance trading programs for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on August 26, 2022.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668. All documents in the docket are listed on the
David Lifland, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 343-9151; email:
Some of the regulatory revisions finalized in this rule affect the EPA by extending the deadlines for the Agency to perform certain allowance recordation activities under the CSAPR trading programs and the Texas SO
The sources participating in the trading programs in each covered state are generally fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines that at any time on or after January 1, 2005, serve electricity generators larger than 25 megawatts producing electricity for sale.
Statutory authority to issue the regulatory revisions finalized in this rule is provided by the same Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions that provided authority to issue the regulations being amended: CAA section 110(a) and (c), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a) and (c) (SIP and federal implementation plan (FIP) requirements, including requirements for mitigation of interstate air pollution); CAA section 169A, 42 U.S.C. 7491 (visibility protection); and CAA section 301, 42 U.S.C. 7601 (general rulemaking authority). Because the revisions amend FIP provisions issued under CAA section 110(c), the rulemaking procedural requirements at CAA section 307(d), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d), apply to this action.
The EPA currently administers seven similarly structured allowance trading programs for electricity generating units under regulations set forth at 40 CFR part 97, subparts AAAAA through GGGGG.
The functions that the EPA performs to administer the seven trading programs include allocation and recordation of allowances. Allocation is the process of determining the shares of the overall quantities of allowances issued for a given control period to be initially credited to various recipients.
Recordation is the process of moving allowances into, out of, or between
In April 2022, the EPA published a proposal to address multiple states' obligations under the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Following an extension, the public comment period on the April 2022 proposal closed on June 21, 2022.
The regulations for each of the seven trading programs addressed in this rule include schedules for the EPA to record advance allocations of allowances issued for each control period. Under the regulations for the CSAPR NO
Under the regulations for the other five CSAPR trading programs and the Texas SO
The April 2022 proposal discussed several reasons supporting the proposed revisions to recordation deadlines. First, with respect to the CSAPR NO
Although the April 2022 proposal's rationale for the proposed recordation deadline revisions was provided in the context of a larger set of proposed trading program revisions, the same rationale supports finalizing the recordation deadline revisions on a stand-alone basis while the Agency continues to work toward a final rule addressing the remainder of the proposal in light of the comments received. With respect to the proposed revision to the deadline for recording the 2023 and 2024 advance allocations of allowances used in the CSAPR NO
It is not possible in this stand-alone rule to finalize the specific revised recordation deadline that was included in the April 2022 proposal for the 2023 and 2024 advance allocations—that is, 30 days after the effective date of a final rule addressing the full proposal. However, the EPA believes that finalizing a recordation deadline of September 1, 2023 in this rule for the 2023 and 2024 advance allocations serves the same dual purpose of, first, allowing sufficient time for a final rule addressing the remainder of the proposal to take effect and, second, recording the allowances far enough in advance of the compliance deadlines for the respective control periods to allow ample time for sources to engage in any desired allowance trading activity. Allowances allocated for the 2023 control period will be recorded in sources' compliance accounts before the end of the 2023 control period and eight months before the June 1, 2024, date for demonstrating compliance for the 2023 control period. Further, if a rule addressing the remainder of the proposal is finalized on a schedule that makes it possible for the allowances to be recorded earlier than September 1, 2023, the EPA could accelerate recordation accordingly.
The April 2022 proposal's rationale also supports finalizing the remaining proposed revisions to recordation deadlines under all seven trading programs on a stand-alone basis. Under these proposed revisions, advance allocations of allowances for control periods in 2025 and later years under all seven trading programs would be recorded by July 1 of the year before the year of each such control period. For the CSAPR NO
The EPA notes that finalization of the proposed revisions to recordation deadlines is separable from the other elements of the April 2022 proposal and does not require finalization of the proposal's other elements or otherwise represent a prejudgment of the Agency concerning the content of a potential future rule. If for some reason the EPA does not finalize, or is delayed in finalizing, the proposal's other elements, finalizing the revisions to the recordation deadlines would still provide the benefits described earlier concerning reduction of the likelihood of future allowance recalls and maintenance of consistency across the trading programs and would have no adverse impact on any source. In this circumstance, the amounts of sources' allocations to be recorded for all control periods under all seven trading programs would remain unchanged from the amounts already determined and announced pursuant to previous rulemakings unless and until a subsequent rule altering the allocation amounts is finalized.
For all the CSAPR trading programs, covered states have options to replace the default EPA-determined allowance allocations with state-determined allowance allocations pursuant to approved SIP revisions. Among other things, the regulations governing the EPA's approval of such SIP revisions require the states' rules to include deadlines for submitting the amounts of the allocations to the EPA that are coordinated with the Agency's deadlines for recording the allowances in sources' compliance accounts. Under the regulations in effect at the time of the April 2022 proposal, the latest approvable deadline for submission of state-determined advance allocations for each control period was June 1 immediately before the EPA's
In the April 2022 proposal, the EPA proposed to revise the latest approvable deadlines for submission of state-determined advance allocations for the control periods in 2025 and later years under all the CSAPR trading programs to June 1 of the year immediately before the year of each such control period (
The EPA considers it appropriate to revise the latest approvable deadlines for states to submit state-determined advance allocations to the Agency in the same stand-alone action as the corresponding recordation deadlines so as to maintain the existing relationship between the two sets of deadlines. The EPA does not need to receive the amounts of any state-determined allocations more than one month before the Agency's corresponding recordation deadlines, and revising the recordation deadlines makes it possible for the EPA to offer states the flexibility to adopt later submission deadlines. The EPA notes that revising the latest approvable submission deadlines in this rule will not obligate any state that already has an approved SIP revision authorizing the state to determine allocations of allowances for some of the CSAPR trading programs to adopt a revised submission deadline.
The EPA is taking final action to revise the regulations for the CSAPR trading programs and the Texas SO
The EPA is making the regulatory revisions finalized in this rule effective immediately upon publication in the
Although APA section 553(d) does not apply to this action, in making the regulatory revisions finalized in this action effective immediately upon publication, the EPA has nevertheless considered this section's underlying purposes. The primary purpose of the section's general requirement for a minimum period between a covered rule's dates of publication and effectiveness is “to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.”
The regulatory revisions to the CSAPR trading programs and the Texas SO
The EPA expects the sources participating in the trading programs to benefit from improved regulatory clarity and potentially also from avoidance of the need to expend time and resources to comply with additional allowance recalls. Further, the EPA expects no adverse impact on any source. The revisions do not alter which sources are required to participate in any of the trading programs, the regulatory requirements applicable to the participating sources, or the amounts of emissions allowances allocated to any source for use in any control period. Advance allocations of allowances issued for the 2023 control period under the CSAPR NO
Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. 601-602. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action simply extends certain administrative deadlines that apply to the EPA or covered states under existing regulations.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. This action simply extends certain administrative deadlines that apply to the EPA or covered states under existing regulations.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it does not establish an
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), indicates which United States Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) if (i) the Agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) the action is locally or regionally applicable, but “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” This action amends existing regulations that apply to 27 states and to sources in those states. For this reason, this final action is nationally applicable. In the alternative, the Administrator hereby finds that this final action is based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to CAA section 307(b), any petitions for review of this final action must be filed in the D.C. Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 97 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) * * *
(9) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(f) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7491, 7601, and 7651,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
In this final action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its reformulated gasoline (RFG) regulations to reflect that York, Cumberland, Androscoggin, Sagadahoc, Kennebec, Knox and Lincoln counties in Maine (the Southern Maine Area) are no longer Federal RFG covered areas as of September 30, 2021. EPA previously approved a petition from Maine to opt out of the Federal RFG program and removed the requirement to sell Federal RFG in the Southern Maine Area as of September 30, 2021. This effective date applied to retailers, wholesale purchaser-consumers, refiners, importers, and distributors. This rule merely updates the list of RFG-covered areas in the Federal regulations to reflect the effective date of the opt-out for the Southern Maine Area.
This final rule is effective August 26, 2022.
Mark Coryell, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; email address:
The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:
Entities potentially affected by this final action are fuel producers and distributors who do business in the Southern Maine Area.
The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this final action. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this final action, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR part 1090. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, see the
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0398. All documents in the docket are listed on the
In this rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 1090.285(d) to reflect that the Southern Maine Area (York, Cumberland, Androscoggin, Sagadahoc, Kennebec, Knox and Lincoln counties)
On July 23, 2013, the Governor of Maine requested that EPA approve a request to voluntarily opt York, Cumberland, Androscoggin, Sagadahoc, Kennebec, Knox and Lincoln counties (the Southern Maine Area) into the Federal RFG program with an effective date of May 1, 2014. EPA approved that request on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6658) with a commencement date for the RFG program of May 1, 2015.
On August 20, 2020, Maine submitted a petition to the EPA Administrator requesting to opt-out from the Federal RFG program for the Southern Maine Area.
By letter dated July 12, 2021, EPA informed Maine of the grant of its petition as required by the RFG opt-out regulations. (
On July 16, 2021, EPA published the
EPA is issuing this final action without prior notice and comment. The rulemaking procedures provided in CAA section 307(d) do not apply when the Agency for good cause finds that notice-and-comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This is a ministerial action that amends 40 CFR 1090.285(d) to reflect the prior EPA approval of Maine's opt-out petition, which was based on criteria in EPA regulations for opting out of the Federal RFG program. EPA's RFG opt-out regulations provide a petition process that addresses, on a case-by-case basis, future individual state requests to opt out of the RFG program. (
Here, EPA is simply revising the list of RFG covered areas in 40 CFR 1090.285(d) to conform with EPA's prior approval of Maine's request, which was effective on September 30, 2021. That approval was a separate action, which was based on criteria in EPA's regulations for opting out of the Federal RFG program and is not the subject of this rule. For these reasons, EPA finds that notice-and-comment procedures under CAA section 307(d)(1) are unnecessary.
This final rule is effective immediately upon publication. Section 553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any information collection burden under the PRA, because it does not contain any information collection activities.
This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the Agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action and the earlier approval of Maine's request to opt the seven counties in the Southern Maine Area out of the Federal RFG program removed a requirement for the sale of Federal RFG in the area as provided for in CAA section 211(k) and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 1090.290(b) and (d).
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule and earlier approval of Maine's request to opt the seven counties in the Southern Maine Area out of the Federal RFG program affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that chose to produce or import gasoline that met Federal RFG program requirements for sale in the Southern Maine Area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. EPA has no reason to believe that this action will disproportionately affect children since Maine has provided evidence that opt-out from the Federal RFG gasoline program will not interfere with its attainment of the ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a
This rule does not involve technical standards.
EPA believes that this action does not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule and the earlier approval of Maine's request to opt the seven counties in the Southern Maine Area out of the Federal RFG program removes the Federal RFG gasoline program requirements for the Southern Maine Area. EPA has concluded that the Federal RFG opt-out will not cause a measurable increase in ozone concentrations that would result in a violation of any ozone NAAQS including the 1997, 2008 ozone NAAQS and the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in EPA's proposed and final rules for Maine's non-interference demonstration. A copy of EPA's approval on July 2, 2021, of Maine's SIP revision has been placed in the public docket for this action.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in section IV, including the basis for that finding.
The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(k) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 1090 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7522-7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 7601.
(d) RFG covered areas located in the ozone transport region established by 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a) that a state has requested to opt into RFG under 42 U.S.C. 7545(k)(6)(B)(i)(I).
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule; technical amendment.
DoD is making a needed technical amendment to update the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).
Effective August 26, 2022.
Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, telephone 703-717-8226.
This final rule amends DFARS 215.300 to provide an updated notice to contracting officers to see DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) for additional guidance when conducting negotiated, competitive acquisition utilizing Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15 procedures.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 215 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
When conducting negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures, contracting officers shall follow the principles and procedures in the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting memorandum provided at PGI 215.300.
Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
Final rule; corrections.
The Department of Justice (“Department” or “DOJ”) is correcting a final rule that was published in the
Effective September 2, 2022.
Tara M. Jamison, Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Justice Management Division, 145 N Street NE, Room 8W.210, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 616-3754 (not a toll-free call).
On August 2, 2022, the Department issued a final rule titled, “Streamlining DOJ Acquisition Regulations (JAR),” revising the existing JAR to update and streamline agency procurement actions (87 FR 47116), with an effective date of September 2, 2022. The text of the final rule contained minor administrative errors. This document corrects those administrative errors.
In FR Doc. 2022-15746, published at 87 FR 47116 in the issue of Tuesday, August 2, 2022, the following corrections are made:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure; request for comments.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully use the 2022 total allowable catch of Pacific cod allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 1, 2022, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2022. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., September 12, 2022.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by docket number NOAA-NMFS-2022-0076, by any of the following methods:
Krista Milani, 907-581-2062.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 26, 2022 (87 FR 4818, January 31, 2022).
NMFS has determined that as of August 22, 2022, approximately 1,500 metric tons of Pacific cod remain in the 2022 Pacific cod apportionment for catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully use the 2022 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the current catch of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 22, 2022.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until September 12, 2022.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on behalf of the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, on February 28, 2022, through a letter dated February 25, 2022. The submission includes a request for the EPA to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia 2015 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and to approve a SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is proposing to approve the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO
Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0290 at
Jane Spann, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-9029. Ms. Jane Spann can also be reached via electronic mail at
EPA is proposing to take the following separate but related actions addressing the February 25, 2022 submittal:
EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A (such approval being one of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) criteria for redesignation to attainment status) and incorporate it into the SIP. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Atlanta Area in attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2033. The maintenance plan includes 2018 and 2033 MVEBs for NO
EPA also proposes to determine that the Atlanta Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry Counties in Georgia, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the MVEBs for the Atlanta Area. The adequacy comment period began on February 11, 2022, with EPA's posting of the availability of Georgia's submission on EPA's adequacy website (
In summary, this notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Georgia's February 25, 2022, redesignation request and associated SIP submission that addresses the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On October 1, 2015, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment.
Upon promulgation of a new or revised ozone NAAQS, section 107(d) of the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that is violating the NAAQS). As part of the designations process for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Atlanta Area was designated as a “Marginal” ozone nonattainment area, effective August 3, 2018.
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) the EPA Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18, 1990;
2. “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);
5. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. “Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Shapiro Memorandum”);
8. “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Nichols Memorandum”); and
10. “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
On February 25, 2022, Georgia requested that EPA redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and approve the associated SIP revision submitted on the same date containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA's evaluation indicates that the Atlanta Area meets the requirements for redesignation as set forth in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under CAA section 175A and associated MVEBs. As a result of these proposed findings, EPA is proposing to take the actions summarized in Section I of this notice.
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes to approve the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, and incorporate it into the Georgia SIP; and redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of this section.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS.
EPA reviewed complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone monitoring data from monitoring stations in the Atlanta Area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2018 through 2021 and has determined that the design values for each monitor in the Area are equal to or less than the standard of 0.070 ppm for that time period. Based on this air quality monitoring data, EPA is proposing to determine that the Atlanta Area attained the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone values at each monitor for 2018 through 2021 and the 3-year averages of these values (
The highest 3-year design value for 2018-2020 for the Atlanta Area is 0.070 ppm at the United Ave site (AQS ID: 13-121-0055),
EPA will not take final action to approve the redesignation of the Atlanta Area if the 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS prior to EPA finalizing the redesignation. Preliminary 2022 ozone monitoring data currently indicates an attaining 2020, 2021 and 2022 design value for the Atlanta Area. As discussed in more detail below, Georgia has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA,
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), referred to as the “good neighbor provision” or the “interstate transport provision” of the Act, requires that SIPs contain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purpose of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (
Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are “applicable” and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request.
Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states with ozone nonattainment areas that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules and corrections to existing VOC reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules that were required under section 172(b)(3) of the CAA (and related guidance) prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2) RACT “fix up” requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because it was designated as nonattainment for this standard after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments. Furthermore, the State complied with this requirement under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each state with a Marginal or higher ozone nonattainment area classification that implemented, or was required to implement, a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program prior to the 1990 CAA amendments to submit a SIP revision providing for an I/M program no less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 amendments or already in the SIP at the time of the amendments, whichever is more stringent. The Atlanta Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2)(B) requirement because the Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.
Regarding the permitting and offset requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) and section 182(a)(4), Georgia currently has a fully approved part D NSR program in place. However, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR, because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in the Nichols Memorandum. Georgia's PSD program will become applicable in the Atlanta Area upon its redesignation to attainment. Nonetheless, Georgia has an
Section 182(a)(3) requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires states to submit a periodic inventory every three years. As discussed below in the
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, EPA proposes to find that the Atlanta Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
EPA has fully approved the applicable Georgia SIP for the Atlanta Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purpose of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request,
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
Georgia also provided data related to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on mobile emissions. Georgia recognized that following the beginning of the pandemic, 2020 vehicle counts and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were lower than 2018 and 2019, but Georgia points out that studies indicate that people plan to work from home more in the future than they did before the pandemic, therefore VMT are not expected to return to pre-pandemic levels.
State measures adopted into the SIP and Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions. The SIP-approved state measures, some of which implement Federal requirements, that have been implemented to date and identified by Georgia include: Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy)—Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides; Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jjj)—NO
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy) requires a case-by-case RACT determination for sources of NO
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jjj) regulates NO
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll) applies to fuel-burning equipment with maximum design head input capacities greater than or equal to 10 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and less than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hr in 45 counties, including all the counties in the Atlanta Area and counties in the surrounding area. It established a compliance date for the ozone standard beginning on May 1, 2000, and it affects all fuel burning equipment installed from that date forward. This rule also affects future possible emissions for new or modified sources by requiring the operation of equipment during the control season to meet emission limits based on the use of natural gas.
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn) establishes ozone season NO
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr) is a RACT rule for small fuel-burning equipment. It requires that in order to reduce NO
Rule Chapter 391-3-20 is the Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (Vehicle Emissions I/M Program). EPA fully approved the State's enhanced I/M program and adopted it into the SIP in January 2000 and updated it in April 2009.
Federal measures enacted in recent years have also resulted in permanent emission reductions in the Atlanta Area. The Federal measures that have been implemented include the following:
On August 8, 2011,
From 2016 to 2021, EPA established multiple rules to address interstate transport of ozone pollution respecting the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS including the CSAPR Update in 2016,
On April 6, 2022, EPA published in the
These standards require all passenger vehicles in any manufacturer's fleet to meet an average standard of 0.07 grams of NO
EPA proposes to find that the improvements in air quality in the Atlanta Area are due to real, permanent and enforceable reductions in NO
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Pursuant to section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the remainder of the 20-year period following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2015 8-hour ozone violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring plan, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As discussed more fully below, EPA has preliminarily determined that Georgia's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Georgia SIP.
As discussed above, the Atlanta Area has an attaining design value for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality-assured monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2018-2020.
The emissions inventory is composed of four major types of sources: Point, non-point, on-road, and non-road mobile. Complete descriptions of how the State developed these inventories are located in Appendix A-3 through Appendix A-10 of the February 25, 2022, SIP submittal.
Georgia provided point source emissions for EGU and non-EGU stationary sources with emissions equal to or exceeding 250 tpy of VOC or 2,500 tpy of NO
EGU point source emissions for the two power plants in the Area (Plant Bowen, Plant McDonough/Atkinson) are tabulated from data collected from Georgia Power during the 2018 emission data collection process.
For non-EGU emissions, Georgia calculated 2018 and 2033 NO
Since 2018 is not an NEI year, GA EPD estimates 2018 area source emissions as an interpolation between 2016 and 2023 emissions from EPA's 2016 emissions modeling platform v1.
GA EPD developed 2018 agricultural burning and land clearing emissions using 2018 burning records from the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) and EPA agricultural burning emission factors provided during the development of 2011 agricultural burning emissions for the 2011 NEI. The emissions for land clearing were estimated using the same method used in SEMAP 2007
GA EPD used 2018 burning records from the GFC, the United States Forest Service, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, and military bases to determine 2018 wildfire and prescribed burning emissions, again using the same method used in SEMAP 2007
The Atlanta Regional Commission developed 2018 and 2033 on-road mobile source emissions using EPA's MOVES3 mobile source emissions model. GA EPD used best available local data for model inputs such as population, VMT, road type distribution, average speed distribution, starts, ramp fractions, age distributions, I/M inputs, and fuel properties. The model was run separately for two different groups of nonattainment counties in the Atlanta Area: one six-county group consisting of Clayton, Cobb, Dekalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry; and Bartow County alone. The Area was broken into two groups because of differences in I/M control programs and summer fuel blends (volatility levels). Running the model separately addresses the impacts from different inputs by county and is consistent with modeling for future transportation conformity demonstrations.
Some non-road mobile emissions in the U.S. are from the non-road equipment segment (
For 2018 locomotive emissions, Georgia used the 2017 NEI
The 2018 base year inventory for the Area, as well as the projected inventories for other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Tables 2 through 4 of the following subsection discussing the maintenance demonstration.
The maintenance plan associated with the redesignation request includes a maintenance plan that does all of the following:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of NO
(ii) Uses 2018 as the attainment year and includes future emissions inventory projections for 2021, 2024, 2027, and 2030. The 2027 emissions were calculated by linear interpolation
(iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NO
(iv) Provides actual 2018 and projected emissions inventories, in tons per summer day (tpsd), for the Atlanta Area, as shown in Tables 2 through 4, below.
Tables 2 through 4 summarize the 2018 and future projected emissions of NO
As discussed in Section VI, below, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. Georgia selected 2018 as the attainment emissions inventory year for the Atlanta Area and calculated safety margins for 2033. Because the initial MVEB year of 2018 is also the base year for the maintenance plan inventory, there is no safety margin for 2018, therefore, no adjustments were made to the MVEB for 2018. The State has allocated a portion of the safety margin to the 2033 MVEB for the Atlanta Area.
The State has decided to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the 2033 MVEBs to allow for, among other things, unanticipated growth in VMT and changes and uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions that will influence the emission estimations. Georgia has allocated 17.57 tpd of the available NO
There currently are nine AQS monitors measuring ozone in the
Georgia, through GA EPD, has the legal authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the Area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
Additionally, under the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) (40 CFR part 51, subpart A), every three years GA EPD is required to develop a comprehensive, annual, statewide emissions inventory that is due twelve to eighteen months after the completion of the inventory year. EPD will update the AERR inventory every three years and will use the updated emissions inventory to track the progress of maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and a procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
In the February 25, 2022, submittal, Georgia states that the minimum requirement for contingency provisions is the implementation of all measures that were contained in the SIP for the Area before the redesignation and that all such measures are in effect for the Area. Georgia also commits to use emission inventory and air quality monitoring data as indicators to determine whether contingency measures will be implemented. The contingency measures in the maintenance plan include a two-tiered triggering mechanism to determine when a contingency measure is needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures.
A Tier 1 trigger will apply where a violation of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard has not occurred, but where the State finds monitored ozone concentrations indicating that a violation may be imminent. The Tier 1 trigger date will be 60 days after the State observes a 4th highest value of 0.071 ppm or greater at a single monitor for which the previous ozone season had a 4th highest value of 0.071 ppm or greater. If Tier 1 is triggered, Georgia will develop a plan identifying additional voluntary measures to be implemented to remedy the situation that may include the following measures to be implemented to remedy the situation. The plan may include the following measures or any other measure deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made: additional Clean Air Force Campaign strategies; additional Georgia Department of Transportation marketing campaigns; implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including incentives for performing retrofits for fleet vehicle operations; alternative fuel programs for fleet vehicle operations; gas can and lawnmower replacement programs; or voluntary engine idling reduction programs.
A Tier II trigger will apply when any quality assured ozone design value is equal to or greater than 0.071 ppm at a monitor in the Atlanta Area which would be a violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Tier II trigger date will be 60 days after the State observes a 4th highest value that, when averaged with the two previous ozone seasons' fourth highest values, would result in a three-year average equal to or greater than 0.071 ppm. Alternatively, a Tier II trigger is activated if the periodic emission inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10 percent in NO
If the comprehensive analysis determines that emissions from the Area are contributing to the trigger condition, GA EPD will evaluate those measures as specified in CAA section 172 for control options as well as other available measures. If a new measure or control is already promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or state level, and that measure or control is determined to be adequate, the State may conclude that additional local controls may be unnecessary. At a minimum, section 175A contingency plans must include a requirement that the state will implement all measures that were contained in the SIP before the redesignation. Currently, all such measures are in effect for the Atlanta Area; however, at the time of a Tier II trigger, an evaluation of those measures such as RACT, can be performed to determine if those measures are adequate or up-to-date. In addition to these measures, contingency measures will be selected from the following types of measures or from any other measures deemed appropriate and effective at the time that the selection is made:
• Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for sources of VOC and NO
• RACT for point sources of VOC and NO
• Expansion of RACM/RACT to area(s) of transport within the State;
• Other measures deemed appropriate at the time as a result of advances in control technologies; and
• Additional NO
EPA preliminarily finds that the maintenance plan adequately provides the five basic required components of a maintenance plan: the attainment
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (
Under the CAA, states are required to submit at various times control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.
After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Atlanta Area, Georgia has developed MVEBs for NO
Georgia has chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the 2033 NO
Through this proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for NO
When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initiated outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments in an action titled “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM
As discussed earlier, Georgia's maintenance plan includes NO
EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval. Approval of Georgia's redesignation request would change the legal designation of Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry Counties, in the Atlanta Area, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Georgia's associated SIP revision would also incorporate a plan for maintaining the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area through 2033 into the Georgia SIP. The maintenance plan establishes NO
EPA is proposing to: (1) approve the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area, including the NO
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry Counties, in Georgia for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81.
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do 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 rules do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 26, 2022 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
If left unmanaged, some wildlife species can pose a risk to human health and safety and may cause tremendous amounts of damage to crops, livestock herds, and private property within the United States. Without mitigation, the damage could result in severe physical and economic losses for States, tribes, businesses, organizations, and private property owners.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that we are proposing to classify eight Mexican regions for bovine tuberculosis as follows: The State of Sonora as Level II; the Yucatán Peninsula region (States of Yucatán and Quintana Roo, and part of the State of Campeche), the Huasteca region (parts of the States of Puebla, Veracruz, and Hidalgo), part of the State of Chihuahua, and part of the State of Durango as Level III; and part of the State of Coahuila, part of the State of Nuevo León, and the State of Tamaulipas as Level IV. These proposed recognitions are based on an evaluation
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 25, 2022.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Kari Coulson, Import Risk Analyst, Regionalization Evaluation Services, Strategy and Policy, VS, APHIS, USDA, 920 Main Campus Drive, Venture II, 3rd floor, Raleigh, NC 27606;
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93, subpart D (§§ 93.400 through 93.442, referred to below as part 93 or the subpart), contain requirements for the importation of ruminants into the United States to address the risk of introducing or disseminating diseases of livestock within the United States. Part 93 currently contains provisions that address the risk that imported bovines (cattle or bison) may introduce or disseminate bovine tuberculosis within the United States. Within part 93, § 93.437 contains the requirements for classification of foreign regions for bovine tuberculosis and § 93.438 contains the process for requesting regional classification for bovine tuberculosis.
In accordance with § 93.437(f), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) maintains lists of all Level I, Level II, Level III, Level IV, and Level V regions for bovine tuberculosis and adds foreign regions classified in accordance with § 93.438 to these lists. In accordance with § 93.437(e), regions that do not have a program that meets APHIS requirements for bovine tuberculosis classification, have a prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in their domestic bovine herds equal to or greater than 0.5 percent, or are unassessed by APHIS with regard to bovine tuberculosis are considered to be Level V.
Paragraph (a) of § 93.438 provides that a representative of a national government with authority to make such a request may request that APHIS classify a region for bovine tuberculosis. Within that same section, paragraph (b) provides that if, after reviewing and evaluating the request for bovine tuberculosis classification, APHIS believes the region can be accurately classified, APHIS will publish a notice in the
The Government of Mexico has requested that APHIS evaluate and classify several Mexican regions for bovine tuberculosis. APHIS has evaluated eight of the proposed Mexican regions to date in response to this request: The State of Sonora; the Yucatán Peninsula region (States of Yucatán and Quintana Roo, and part of the State of Campeche); the Huasteca region (parts of the States of Puebla, Veracruz, San Luis Potosí, and Hidalgo); part of the State of Chihuahua, part of the State of Durango; part of the State of Coahuila; part of the State of Nuevo León; and the State of Tamaulipas. We have detailed the findings and conclusions in a document titled “APHIS Evaluation of Eight Mexican Regions for Bovine Tuberculosis (
Additionally, although the Government of Mexico requested inclusion of part of the State of San Luis Potosí (Zone A1) in the Huasteca region, the APHIS evaluation concluded that Zone A1 does not meet the conditions to be classified as Level III at this time. San Luis Potosí (Zone A1) is eligible to export bovine animals to the United States under a previous agreement. Pursuant to a final rule published in the
Regions of Mexico not listed above do not currently hold bovine tuberculosis status and are not eligible to export bovine animals to the United States except to direct slaughter. These regions either do not have a program that meets APHIS requirements for bovine tuberculosis classification or are unassessed by APHIS with regard to bovine tuberculosis and would be considered Level V for bovine tuberculosis.
Therefore, in accordance with § 93.438(b), we are announcing the availability of our evaluation of these eight Mexican regions for bovine tuberculosis for public review and comment.
Information submitted in support of Mexico's request is available by contacting the person listed under
After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our final determination regarding classification of these eight Mexican regions with respect to bovine tuberculosis in a subsequent notice.
On December 27, 2021, we published in the
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended, RUS's implementing regulations, and other applicable environmental requirements related to providing financial assistance for Badger State Solar, LLC's proposed Alternating Current solar project (Project) in Wisconsin. RUS has included documentation in the FEIS demonstrating RUS has completed its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties.” The FEIS addresses the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 149 megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) alternating current solar energy generating facility on a site in in Jefferson County, Wisconsin described previously in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). It also addresses comments received during the comment period for the DEIS.
Written comments on the FEIS will be accepted for 30 days following the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's environmental impact statement receipt notice in the
The Final EIS and other Project-related information is available at RUS's and Badger State Solar's websites located at:
All comments submitted during the comment period will become part of the public record. Before including your address, telephone 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. All comments will be reviewed and in the Record of Decision. For consideration, comments must be received by October 3, 2022.
Comments may be submitted at
To receive copies of the FEIS or request information on the proposed Project, the FEIS process, and RUS financing, contact Peter Steinour at
Copies of the FEIS will be available for review at the Jefferson Public Library in Jefferson, WI, the Cambridge Community Library in Cambridge, WI and the Lake Mills Library in Lake Mills, WI. Library locations will be published in the local papers.
Badger State Solar is a project of the solar development company, Ranger Power. Many of Wisconsin's fossil-fueled power plants are scheduled to cease power generation over the next several years. Six of the 12 coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin have been retired or are scheduled to go offline. The Applicant's purpose and need for the proposed Project is to develop a utility-scale solar facility in Jefferson County, Wisconsin, to replace load demand on local utilities, including Dairyland Power, resulting from coal-fired power plant closures or scheduled decommissioning.
Badger State Solar has indicated the intention to request Federal financing from USDA RUS for development of the Project. While RUS is authorized under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (REA) to finance electric generation infrastructure in rural areas, it is the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), not RUS, who is responsible for electric grid planning. Supporting renewable energy projects meets both RUS's goal to support infrastructure development in rural communities and USDA's support of the President's Climate Action Plan, issued in June 2013, which encourages voluntary actions to increase energy independence.
Badger State Solar proposes to construct, install, operate, and maintain a 149 MW PV alternating current solar energy generating facility on a site in the Townships of Jefferson and Oakland, in Jefferson County, Wisconsin. The proposed Project involves approximately 1,200 acres located on the north and south sides of U.S. Highway 18, approximately 2-miles west of the City of Jefferson and west of State Highway 89. Site land cover is predominantly agricultural crops and pasture, with some forest and wetland. Bader State Solar estimates the total project cost will be approximately $225,000,000. Project construction would begin in October 2022. Construction would be complete, and the project would be expected to come online by Fall 2023.
Construction involves the installation on leased lands of 487,848 single-axis tracking PV panels. The PV panels would be mounted on a steel racking frame. Supporting facilities include an electrical substation. The lease agreement allows for an operating period of 40 years. A power purchase agreement (PPA) has been executed with Dairyland Power Cooperative for the entire output of the Project. The proposed site is near the point of interconnection to the grid at the American Transmission Company Jefferson substation near the
Construction equipment would include graders, bulldozers, excavators, forklifts, trailers, plows, trenchers, pile drivers, and directional boring rigs. Vehicles for transporting construction materials and components primarily would be legal load over-the road flatbed and box trucks. Transport would use existing regional roads, bridges, and intersections. Laydown areas would be established within the Project site. Internal site access roads would be required. The solar facility would be interconnected to the transmission grid through the existing ATC substation located to the northeast of the proposed substation and would require a short 138 kilovolt (kV) overhead line between the two stations. Laydown areas and a Laydown Yard would be established within the Project site. Fencing would be placed around contiguous blocks of solar arrays.
Potential locations for development of the solar facility in Wisconsin were evaluated in an initial preliminary site review to identify locations where electric transmission infrastructure would be sufficient to connect a solar project to the power grid. The Site Selection Study consisted of three phases of evaluation which began with 18 potential sites and ended with the identification of the 1,200 acre proposed site in Jefferson County as the most feasible alternative for detailed evaluation in the EIS because it best meets the purpose and need and minimizes or mitigates potential impacts.
RUS is authorized to make loans and loan guarantees that finance the construction of the Badger State Solar Alternating Current Project. RUS is responsible for completing the environmental review process in processing Badger State Solar's application. RUS is serving as the lead Federal agency, as defined at 40 CFR1501.5, for preparation of the FEIS.
The proposed Project is subject to the jurisdiction of Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Wisconsin State Historical Society of Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), and State of Wisconsin Division of Safety and Buildings. PSCW and WDNR are responsible for coordination of environmental reviews for compliance with the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA). PSCW and WDNR must comply with WEPA when reviewing proposed energy construction projects, including electric generating and transmission projects seeking PSCW statutory approval. WEPA applies only to actions of state agencies. However, the environmental impact of the proposed Project was reviewed by PSCW, in coordination with WDNR, as part of the application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). PSCW issued an Order approving the CPCN application subject conditions issued in the Final Decision on February 26, 2020 (Docket 9800-CE-100)
RUS has prepared the FEIS to analyze the impacts of its respective Federal actions and the proposed Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321
RUS evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed Project on environmental resources. The analysis determined that there would be no impact or minor adverse impacts on soils and geology, air quality, acoustic environment (noise), water resources (including groundwater and surface water), biological resources (including vegetation, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, wildlife, fisheries and aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species), land resources (including prime farmlands), visual resources, transportation, cultural resources and historic properties, public health and safety, and socioeconomics and environmental justice associated with the proposed Project. Badger State Solar would implement mitigation measures as necessary and appropriate to minimize adverse impacts. There would be potential beneficial effects on soils, water resources, air quality, and socioeconomics. Unavoidable adverse effects related to proposed Project operations would last only as long as the useful life of the solar facility (an expected 40 years). Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, or in permanent losses to maintenance or enhancement of long-term productivity of the environment. When the incremental effects from the proposed Project are considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there would be no cumulative adverse impact.
This Notice of Availability also serves as a notice of proposed wetland and floodplain actions. It is anticipated that there will be no permanent wetland impacts and no significant direct or indirect impacts to floodplains. The proposed Project was planned to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and waterways to the extent practicable during the site selection and design phase of the Project. Throughout the Project, best management practices (BMPs) (
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the California Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via a Webex platform on Wednesday, September 28, 2022, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., for the purpose of hearing testimony regarding the civil rights impacts of AB5.
The meeting will take place on:
•
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the public WebEx registration link listed above. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at:
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of Virtual Business Meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via Webex at 3:00 p.m. PT on Thursday, September 22, 2022. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss proposed topics of study.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, September 22, 2022, from 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. PT.
Ana Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the conference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Angelica Trevino at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a briefing on algorithms and civil rights in Connecticut on Thursday, September 8, 2022, from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m. The briefing's location is the Legislative Office Building, Room 1E, 300 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106. The purpose of the briefing is to hear from experts on the topic of algorithms and civil rights in Connecticut.
Barbara Delaviez at
If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at
Time will be set aside at the end of the meeting so that members of the public may address the Committee after the briefing during the open comment session. This meeting is available to the public by attendance in person.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The statutory authorization for the TAAF program sunset in two stages. First, on July 1, 2021, the TAAF program reverted to more limited eligibility criteria. Second, as of June 30, 2022, assistance could not be provided to new firms. After that date, assistance could only be provided to firms that had previously submitted a petition under the TAAF program. EDA wishes to extend the current information collection for the TAAF program so that EDA may continue to review and approve adjustment proposals from certified firms, and in case the TAAF program is re-authorized by Congress.
This information collection request may be viewed at
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
Piramal Pharma Solutions submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania under FTZ 35. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 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 are bempedoic acid and ezetimibe tablets (180/10 milligrams) (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials are bempedoic acid and ezetimibe (duty rate ranges from 4% to 6.5%). The request indicates that the materials 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
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 Christopher Wedderburn at
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee will meet September 13, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
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 August 19, 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 July 6, 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia). For these final results, Commerce finds that PT. Daesang Ingredients Indonesia (PT. Daesang) is the successor-in-interest to PT. Miwon Indonesia (PT. Miwon) and should be assigned the same AD cash deposit rate for purposes of determining AD liability.
Applicable August 26, 2022.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On March 10, 2022, PT. Daesang requested that Commerce conduct an expedited CCR to find that PT. Daesang is the successor-in-interest to PT. Miwon.
The merchandise covered by the
MSG in monohydrate form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4Na-H2O, a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of 6106-04-3, and a Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII) number of W81N5U6R6U. MSG in anhydrous form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4 Na, a CAS registry number of l42-47-2, and a UNII number of C3C196L9FG.
Merchandise covered by the
Because the record contains no information or evidence that calls into question the
As a result of these final results and consistent with established practice, we find that, as the successor-in-interest to PT. Miwon, entries of MSG from Indonesia produced and/or exported by PT. Daesang should be subject to the cash deposit rate previously assigned to PT. Miwon. Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by PT. Daesang and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216(e), 19 CFR 351.221(b), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that imports of certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes (pipe and tube), completed in Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from hot-rolled steel (HRS) produced in India, are not circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on pipe and tube from India.
Applicable August 26, 2022.
Jacob Keller or Dusten Hom, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4849 or (202) 482-5075, respectively.
On May 12, 1986, Commerce published the order on imports of pipe and tube from India.
The products covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers pipe and tube completed in Oman and the UAE using India-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Oman and the UAE to the United States.
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of these circumvention inquiries,
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce preliminarily determines that pipe and tube completed in Oman and the UAE using India-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Oman or the UAE to the United States are not circumventing the
As provided in 19 CFR 351.307, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Because Commerce intends to conduct verification, interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit written comments (case briefs) at a date to be determined by Commerce and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a circumvention inquiry request from the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Working Group and its individual members, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating a country-wide circumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of aluminum sheet produced from aluminum alloy 4017 are circumventing the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on common alloy aluminum sheet (CAAS) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable August 26, 2022.
Frank Schmitt, 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) 482-4880.
On July 7, 2022, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Working Group and its individual members (collectively, the domestic industry),
On August 4, 2022, we extended the deadline to issue a decision regarding whether to initiate this circumvention inquiry by 15 days, in accordance with the 19 CFR 351.226(d)(1), to August 22, 2022.
The merchandise covered by the
The merchandise subject to the circumvention inquiry is 4017 aluminum sheet, having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less, but greater that 0.2 mm, in coils or cut-to-length, regardless of width. According to the Domestic Industry, such 4017 aluminum sheet is a not clad aluminum sheet product whose chemical content has been modified from in-scope CAAS. All 4017 aluminum sheet that meets the scope description with respect to physical characteristics (other than principle alloying element) is subject to this inquiry. The subject 4017 aluminum sheet is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading 7607.12.3096.
Section 351.226(d)(1)(ii) of Commerce's regulations states that if Commerce determines that a request for a circumvention inquiry satisfies the requirements of 19 CFR 351.226(c), then Commerce “will accept the request and initiate a circumvention inquiry.” Section 351.226(c)(1) of Commerce's regulations, in turn, requires that each request for a circumvention inquiry allege “that the elements necessary for a circumvention determination under section 781 of the Act exist” and be “accompanied by information reasonably available to the interested party supporting these allegations.” The domestic industry alleged circumvention pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act (merchandise altered in form or appearance in minor respects).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(m)(2), for companion antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, “the Secretary will initiate and conduct a single inquiry with respect to the product at issue for both orders only on the record of the antidumping proceeding.” Further, once “the Secretary issues a final circumvention determination on the record of the antidumping duty proceeding, the Secretary will include a copy of that determination on the record of the countervailing duty proceeding.” Accordingly, once Commerce concludes this circumvention inquiry, Commerce intends to place its final circumvention determination on the record of the companion CVD proceeding.
Section 781(c)(1) of the Act provides that the class or kind of merchandise subject to an AD or CVD order shall include articles that have been “altered in form or appearance in minor respects . . . whether or not included in the same tariff classification.” Section 781(c)(2) of the Act provides an exception that section 781(c)(1) of the Act “shall not apply with respect to altered merchandise if the administering authority determines that it would be unnecessary to consider the altered merchandise within the scope of the {order}.” Concerning the allegation of minor alteration under section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(j), Commerce may consider criteria including, but not limited to: (1) overall physical characteristics of the merchandise; (2) expectations of ultimate users; (3) use of the merchandise; (4) channels of marketing; and (5) cost of any modification relative to the value of the imported products.
After analyzing the record evidence and the domestic industry's allegation, we determine that the circumvention request satisfies the requirements of 19 CFR 351.226(c) and that there is sufficient information to warrant initiation of a circumvention inquiry based on minor alterations, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(j). For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate a circumvention inquiry,
As explained in the Initiation Decision Memorandum, the information provided by the domestic industry also warrants initiating this circumvention inquiry on a country-wide basis.
Commerce intends to establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues related to this inquiry. A company's failure to respond completely to Commerce's requests for information may result in the application of partial or total facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, which may include adverse inferences, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.226(l)(1), Commerce intends to notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of this initiation and direct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries of products subject to this circumvention inquiry that were already subject to the suspension of liquidation under the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(d) and sections 781(c) and (d) of the Act, Commerce determines that the domestic industry's request for a circumvention inquiry satisfies the requirements of 19 CFR 351.226(c). Accordingly, Commerce is notifying all interested parties of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry to determine whether 4017 aluminum alloy produced in, and exported from, China is circumventing the
This notice is published in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(d)(1)(ii).
The merchandise covered by the
Common alloy sheet may be made to ASTM specification B209-14, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all common alloy sheet meeting the scope description is included in the scope. Subject merchandise includes common alloy sheet that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the
Excluded from the scope of the
Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for the above.
Common alloy sheet is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public joint meeting of its Habitat Advisory Panel via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Monday, September 12, 2022, at 1 p.m. Webinar registration URL information
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel will provide feedback on the following items discussed during an August 18, 2022 meeting of the Habitat Committee: (1) utility of a research project conducted in the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area for management
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 25, 2022.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Dr. Joe Terry, Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East West Hwy., Building SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282, (858) 454-2547,
NOAA is requesting approval for a new generic clearance for its citizen science and crowdsourcing projects and approval for those citizen science and crowdsourcing existing collections in use without an OMB control number. The generic clearance would allow NOAA to do the following: (1) be more responsive to the Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Act (15 U.S.C. 3724), as well as the other laws and Executive Orders (E.O.) listed under Legal Authority in Section III, (2) more rapidly and efficiently come into compliance with the PRA and, therefore, (3) obtain additional scientific information that supports its mission to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, ocean, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
NOAA relies on scientific information. Citizen science and crowdsourcing techniques will allow NOAA to collect qualitative and quantitative data that might help inform scientific research and monitoring, validate models or tools, support STEM learning, and enhance the quantity and quality of data collected to support NOAA's mission. Information gathered under this generic clearance will be used by NOAA to support the activities listed above and might provide unprecedented avenues for conducting breakthrough research. Collections under this generic clearance will be from participants who actively seek to participate on their own initiative through an open and transparent process (NOAA does select participants or require participation); collections will be low-cost for both the participants and the Federal Government; and the data will be available to support the scientific research (including assessments, tools, models, etc.) of NOAA and its partners. Its partners include states, tribal or local entities, business or other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions or organizations. NOAA may, by virtue of collaborating with other federal agencies and/or non-federal entities, sponsor the collection of this type of information in connection with citizen science or crowdsourcing projects. All collections must comply with NOAA policies and the scope of this generic clearance, which includes, but is not limited to, the natural, applied, social, and cultural sciences as they apply to crowdsourcing and citizen science activities. Finally, personally identifiable information (PII) will only be collected when necessary and in accordance with applicable federal procedures and policies. If a new collection is not within the parameters of this generic clearance, NOAA will submit a separate information collection request to OMB for approval of that new collection.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Texas Sea Grant. If granted, the EFP would authorize the testing of new bycatch reduction device (BRD) designs in the commercial shrimp fishery in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). The Better BRDs for the Gulf Shrimp Fleet Project is a collaborative effort amongst Louisiana Sea Grant, Texas Sea Grant, NOAA Restoration Center, and NMFS to restore finfish populations impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (MC252) through the development and certification of new BRDs for the commercial shrimp industry throughout the Gulf.
Written comments must be received on or before September 12, 2022.
You may submit comments on the application, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2022-0089” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the application and may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Frank Helies, 727-824-5305; email:
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C 1801
The EFP application submitted to NMFS involves the use of experimental fishing gear (BRDs) in Federal waters. Federal regulations require shrimp vessels to use NMFS approved BRDs while trawling for Gulf shrimp in Federal waters in the Gulf (50 CFR 622.53(a)). The EFP would exempt these research activities from the regulations requiring the use of BRDs in Federal waters of the Gulf at 50 CFR 622.53(a), and would allow the applicant to replace an existing approved BRD with one of six experimental BRDs determined by the applicant. The specific EFP request is further described and summarized below.
The Better BRDs for the Gulf Shrimp Fleet Project is a collaborative effort amongst Louisiana Sea Grant, Texas Sea Grant, NOAA Restoration Center, and NMFS to restore finfish populations injured by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (MC252) through development and certification of new BRDs for the commercial shrimp industry throughout the Gulf. The project involves the testing of new BRD designs in the commercial shrimp fishery in Federal waters of the Gulf. The new BRD designs could demonstrate a greater reduction in bycatch over the federally certified Fisheye BRD, which may also lead to an overall increase in shrimp catch.
This project would identify and develop new bycatch-reducing technology to minimize commercial shrimp trawl finfish discard mortality. Additionally, the project seeks to advance cost-effective solutions for the Gulf shrimp fleet that would maximize the adoption of improved BRDs.
The project is separated into several phases. The first phase was conducted over the past year and included proof-of-concept testing of new BRD designs
The next phase, covered by this EFP, would further evaluate the vetted BRDs through cost-effective solutions as part of commercial stakeholder testing. The final phase would be pre-certification and certification testing of the selected BRDs, consistent with the requirements in 50 CFR 622.53(a)(2) and the Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual (
The purpose of the commercial stakeholder testing that would be authorized under this EFP is to allow for stakeholder input on the strengths and weaknesses of new BRD designs across a variety of species and environmental conditions within the Gulf. This testing would also aid in the acceptance of new BRDs by the commercial shrimping industry when the most promising designs are later submitted for NMFS certification.
Up to 30 federally-permitted commercial Gulf shrimp vessels would be selected by the applicant to test gear that passed the proof-of-concept testing. The location of proof-of-concept testing trial vessels would be distributed across the Federal Gulf shrimp fishery and fishing grounds throughout the Gulf in water depths of 10-50 fathoms (18-91 m). During testing, vessels included in the EFP would be surveyed for qualitative information about the new BRDs, and any other use recommendations that are needed. Additional BRD information including time and difficulty to install, longevity, ease of use (
Vessels in the project would be using experimental BRD designs on trips of up to 30 days at sea. Trip duration and the total number of tows with experimental BRD gear may vary based on underway conditions and vessel business factors at the discretion of the vessel operator. During a 30-day trip, approximately 90 tows with BRD-equipped shrimp trawls are expected to occur. Tow times would be variable but would be consistent during each trip. Typical tow time average 3 hours but may vary from 1 to 5 hours. If all 30 vessels participate, and complete each test tow, there is the potential for a maximum of 1,800 tows for this phase of the project.
The EFP would be valid through December 31, 2024, commencing on the date the EFP is issued. All BRD testing on federally permitted shrimp vessels would occur during the course of normal Gulf shrimp fishing operations and all of these operations would comply with all other current Federal shrimp regulations such as closed areas and size limits.
Under the EFP, six initial experimental BRD configurations could be tested by the applicant and project vessels. Each type of experimental BRD to be tested during the EFP is listed and summarized below.
The Toms Fisheye BRD is a metal fisheye design with solid sides for buoyancy that produces an escape area in the net to allow fish to swim out. The device is installed further forward (approximately 11 ft (3 m)) than the standard Fisheye BRD and builds on an established design created in Australia.
In the Large Mesh Sections BRD, areas of the otter trawl net that are composed of 2 inch (5.1 cm) or larger mesh that is well above minimum cod end dimensions and installed anywhere from 4 to 8 ft (1.2 to 2.4 m) from the trawl tie off rings. The large mesh provides openings that make it easier for fish to escape the trawl net.
The Nested Cylinder BRD includes an extended funnel with radial openings and metal collar supporting radial mesh. This type of BRD is installed directly behind the turtle excluder device (TED) on the shrimp trawl. The funnel retains shrimp while allowing fish the opportunity to swim back to the openings and escape.
The Virgil Potter BRD is also known as the “Radial Escape Panel”. It consists of a soft funnel design installed directly behind the TED and shrimp are retained by the funnel while allowing fish the opportunity to swim back to the openings and escape.
The project would test two different flapless TED designs known as the Chauvin TED and the Drury TED. These are both top-shooting TEDs with PVC pieces placed ahead of TED extension at the leading edge of the escape opening cut. These TEDs are designed to work as both a TED and a BRD. However, neither TED configuration has been tested as a BRD.
The Chauvin TED is a top shooting TED that contains a “Chauvin shrimp deflector”, which is an allowable TED modification (50 CFR part 223.207(d)(8)). The Drury modification is not an allowable TED modification. Therefore, if the Drury TED modification is tested under this EFP, the applicant would need to obtain an additional TED testing permit from NMFS prior to commencement of testing.
The Composite Panel BRD is a NMFS-certified design that includes two soft panels with two sets of windows that allow fish to escape the net in addition a secondary component of either a spooker cone or a large mesh section installed further down the net. There is a potential for differences in BRD characteristics when used with a top versus bottom shooting TED. There is also potential for differences when installed with the escape openings in a top orientation of the composite panel as opposed to the current certified design that orients the escape openings to the bottom.
NMFS finds the application warrants further consideration based on a preliminary review. Possible conditions the agency may impose on the permit, if granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition on conducting fishing gear testing within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, special management zones, or areas where they might interfere with managed fisheries without additional authorization. Additionally, NMFS may require special protections for Endangered Species Act-listed species and designated critical habitat, and may require particular gear markings. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the appropriate fishery management agencies of the affected states, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that the activities to be taken under the EFP are consistent with all applicable laws.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hybrid meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Crab Plan Team will meet September 12, 2022, through September 15, 2022.
The meeting will be held on Monday, September 12, 2022, through Thursday, September 15, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST.
The meetings will be a hybrid meeting. The in-person component of the meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center in the Traynor Room 2076, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115, or join the meeting online through the links at
Sarah Rheinsmith, Council staff; phone; (907) 271-2809; email:
The agenda will include:
(a) summer trawl survey results;
(b) Fishery summary 2021;
(c) Ecosystem Status report;
(d) SMBKC report card;
(e) SMBKC final SAFE and rebuilding update;
(f) Climate model updates;
(g) ESP Snow crab;
(h) Snow Crab final SAFE;
(i) Snow crab rebuilding;
(j) BBRKC report card;
(k) BBRKC final SAFE;
(l) PIRKC final SAFE;
(m) Tanner crab final SAFE;
(n) Overfishing status updates;
(o) EFH stock author report update;
(p) NSRKC proposed model runs;
(q) BSFRF update;
(r) Modifying timing of Crab Assessments update; and
(s) additional topics.
The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hybrid meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Partial Coverage Fishery Monitoring Advisory Committee (PCFMAC) will meet September 12, 2022.
The meeting will be held on Monday, September 12, 2022, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. PST.
The meetings will be a hybrid meeting. The in-person component of the meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center in the Marine Mammal Conference Room 2039, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115, or join the meeting online through the links at
Sara Cleaver, Council staff; phone: (907) 271-2809 and email:
At this meeting, the PCFMAC will receive the partial observer coverage cost efficiencies integrated analysis and will have an opportunity to develop recommendations for NMFS and the Council. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from Orsted Wind Power North America LLC (Orsted) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to high resolution geophysical (HRG) site characterization surveys in coastal waters from New York to Massachusetts in the areas of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, 0500, and along potential export cable routes (ECR) to landfall locations between Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight) and Falmouth, MA. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 26, 2022.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Jessica Taylor, 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.
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 preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On April 19, 2022, NMFS received a request from Orsted for an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys in federal waters located OCS Commercial Lease Areas off the coasts from Rhode Island to Massachusetts, and along potential ECRs to landfall locations between Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight) and Falmouth, Massachusetts. Following NMFS' review of the draft application, a revised version was submitted on July 8, 2022. The application was deemed adequate and complete on August 3, 2022. Orsted's request is for take of 16 species of marine mammals (consisting of 16 stocks) by Level B harassment only. Neither Orsted nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued IHAs and a renewal IHA to Orsted for marine site characterization HRG surveys in the OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500 Lease Areas (84 FR 52464, October 2, 2019; 85
On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing North Atlantic right whale vessel speed regulations to further reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered right whales from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (87 FR 46921). Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and become effective during the effective period of this IHA (or any other MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder would be required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained within the final rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any other MMPA authorization, authorization holders would be required to comply with the requirements of the rule. Alternatively, where measures in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in the MMPA authorization would remain in place. These changes would become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final vessel speed rule and would not require any further action on NMFS's part.
Orsted proposes to conduct HRG surveys in the Lease Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, 0500 and ECR Area in federal waters from New York to Massachusetts to support the characterization of the existing seabed and subsurface geological conditions, which is necessary for the development of an offshore electric transmission system. The proposed project will use active HRG sources operating at frequencies lower than 180 kHz, which may result in the incidental take of marine mammals by Level B harassment. This take of marine mammals is anticipated to be in the form of behavioral harassment and no serious injury or mortality is anticipated, nor is any proposed. In-water work will include approximately 400 survey days using multiple vessels lasting from September 25, 2022 to September 24, 2023.
As described above, HRG surveys are expected to commence on September 25, 2022 and last through September 24, 2023 for up to approximately 400 survey days (Table 1). Orsted is proposing to conduct continuous HRG survey operations 12-hours per day and 24-hours per day using multiple vessels. A survey day is defined as a 24-hour activity day in which an assumed number of line km are surveyed. The number of anticipated survey days was calculated as the number of days needed to reach the overall level of effort required to meet survey objectives assuming any single vessel covers, on average 70 line kilometer (km) per 24-hour operations. A survey day accounts for multiple vessels such that two vessels operating within one 24-hour period equates to two survey days. A maximum of three vessels would work concurrently in the project area in any combination of 24-hour and 12-hour vessels. To be conservative, our exposure analysis assumes daily 24-hour operations. Although vessels may complete 20-80 km/day of actual source operations, we anticipate that vessels will average 70 line km of active IHA-regulated sources per day. As shown by Table 1, the estimated number of survey days varies by Lease Area and ECR.
Orsted's survey activities would occur in the Lease Areas located approximately 14 miles (22.5 km) south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts at its closest point to land, as well as along potential export cable route (ECR) corridors off the coast of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts to landfall locations between Raritan Bay and Falmouth, MA, as shown in Figure 1. Water depths in the project area extend out from shoreline to approximately 90 m in depth.
Orsted proposes to conduct HRG survey operations, including multibeam depth sounding, seafloor imaging, and shallow and medium penetration sub-bottom profiling. The HRG surveys will include the use of seafloor mapping equipment with operating frequencies above 180 kilohertz (kHz) (
Acoustic sources planned for use during HRG survey activities proposed by Orsted for which sounds levels have the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals include the following:
• Shallow penetration, non-impulsive, intermittent, mobile, non-parametric SBPs (
• Medium penetration SBPs (boomers) are used to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a broad-band sound source operating in the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz frequency range. This system is commonly mounted on a sled and towed behind the vessel. Boomers are impulsive and mobile sources; and
• Medium penetration SBPs (sparkers) are used to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed. Sparkers create acoustic pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz omnidirectionally from the source, and are considered to be impulsive and mobile sources. Sparkers are typically towed behind the vessel with adjacent hydrophone arrays to receive the return signals.
Operation of the following survey equipment types is not reasonably expected to result in take of marine mammals and will not be discussed further beyond the brief summaries provided below:
• Parametric SBPs, also commonly referred to as sediment echosounders, are used to provide high data density in sub-bottom profiles that are typically required for cable routes, very shallow water, and archaeological surveys. Parametric SPBs are typically mounted
• Acoustic cores are seabed-mounted sources with three distinct sound sources: A high-frequency parametric source, a high-frequency CHIRP sonar, and a low-frequency CHIRP sonar. The beam width is narrow (3.5° to 8°) and the source is operated roughly 3.5 m above the seabed from a seabed mount, with the transducer pointed directly downward;
• Ultra-short baseline (USBL) positioning systems are used to provide high accuracy ranges by measuring the time between the acoustic pulses transmitted by vessel transceiver and a transponder (or beacon) necessary to produce the acoustic profile. It is a two-component system with a moon pool- or side pole mounted transceiver and one or several transponders mounted on other survey equipment. USBLs are expected to produce extremely small acoustic propagation distances in their typical operating configuration;
• Multibeam echosounders (MBES) are used to determine water depths and general bottom topography. MBES sonar systems project sonar pulses in several angled beams from a transducer mounted to a ship's hull. The beams radiate out from the transducer in a fan-shaped pattern orthogonally to the ship's direction. All of the proposed MBESs have operating frequencies >180 kHz and, therefore, are outside the general hearing range of marine mammals; and
• Side scan sonars (SSS) are used for seabed sediment classification purposes and to identify natural and man-made acoustic targets on the seafloor. The sonar device emits conical or fan-shaped pulses down toward the seafloor in multiple beams at a wide angle, perpendicular to the path of the sensor through the water column. All of the proposed SSS have operating frequencies >180 kHZ and, therefore, are outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.
Table 2 identifies representative survey equipment with the expected potential to result in exposure of marine mammals and thus potentially result in take. The make and model of the listed geophysical equipment may vary depending on availability and the final equipment choices will vary depending upon the final survey design, vessel availability, and survey contractor selection.
The deployment of certain types of HRG survey equipment, including some of the equipment planned for use during Orsted's proposed activity, produces sound in the marine environment that has the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for these 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 managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS U.S. draft 2021 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2020 SARs (Hayes
As indicated above, all 16 species (with 16 managed stocks) in Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in the
In addition, the Florida manatee (
Below is a description of the species that have the highest likelihood of occurring in the project area and are, thus, expected to potentially be taken by the proposed activities as well as further detail informing the baseline for select species (
The North Atlantic right whale ranges from calving grounds in the southeastern United States to feeding grounds in New England waters and into Canadian waters (Hayes
New England waters are a primary feeding habitat for NARWs during late winter through spring, with feeding moving into deeper and more northerly waters during summer and fall. Since 2010, NARWs have reduced their use of habitats in the Great South Channel and Bay of Fundy, while increasing their use of habitat within Cape Cod Bay as well as a region south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands (Stone
In the late fall months (
NARW movements within and between habitats are extensive and the area off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts is an important migratory corridor. The proposed project area overlaps a portion of a NARW Biologically Important Area (BIA) for migration. This migratory corridor is approximately 269,488 km
Since 2010, the western North Atlantic right whale population has been in decline (Pace
NMFS regulations at 50 CFR part 224.105 designated nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) for right whales in 2008. SMAs were developed to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds. The Block Island SMA,
Right Whale Slow Zones are established when NARWs are detected both visually (
Dynamic Management areas (DMAs) are a type of NARW Slow Zones that may be established when three or more NARWs are visually sighted within a discrete area. This criteria is based upon findings by Clapham and Pace (2001) that showed an aggregation of three or more whales is likely to remain in the area for several days, in contrast to an aggregation of fewer whales. Acoustic Slow Zones are another type of NARW Slow Zone based upon acoustic detections, and are established when three or more upcall detections from an acoustic system occur within an evaluation period (
Elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities have occurred since June 7, 2017 along the U.S. and Canadian coasts. As of July 2022, a total of 34 confirmed dead stranded whales (21 in Canada; 13 in the United States) have been documented. This event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME), with human interactions, including entanglement in fixed fishing gear and vessel strikes, implicated in at least 16 of the mortalities thus far. More information is available online at:
Humpback whales are found worldwide in all oceans. Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. The West Indies DPS, which is not listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of humpback whales that is expected to occur in the project area. Whales occurring in the project area are not necessarily from the Gulf of Maine feeding population managed as a stock by NMFS. Bettridge
In New England waters, feeding is the principal activity of humpback whales, and their distribution in this region has been largely correlated to abundance of prey species (Payne
Kraus
The most significant anthropogenic causes of mortality of humpback whales include incidental fishery entanglements, responsible for roughly eight whale mortalities, and vessel collisions, responsible for four mortalities both on average annually from 2013 to 2017 (Hayes
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. This event has been declared a UME. Partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on approximately half of the 161 known cases (as of July 14, 2022). Of the whales examined, approximately 50 percent had evidence of human interaction, either ship strike or entanglement. While a portion of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike, this finding is not consistent across all whales examined and more research is needed. Three previous UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. More information is available at:
Fin whales have a common occurrence in waters of the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape Hatteras northward with a distribution in both continental shelf and deep water habitats (Hayes
New England and Gulf of St. Lawrence waters represent major feeding grounds for fin whales (Hayes
The fin whale is federally listed under the ESA as an endangered marine mammal and are designated as a strategic stock under the MMPA due to their endangered status under the ESA, uncertain human-caused mortality, and incomplete survey coverage of the stock's defined range. The main threats to fin whales are fishery interactions and vessel collisions (Hayes
The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales can be found in deeper waters of the continental shelf edge waters of the northeastern U.S. and northeastward to south of Newfoundland (Hayes
Sei whales are most common in deeper waters along the continental shelf edge (NMFS, 2021) but will forage occasionally in shallower, inshore waters. A sei whale BIA for feeding occurs adjacent to the east of the proposed project area. The occurrence and abundance of sei whales on feeding grounds may shift dramatically from one year to the next. CETAP surveys observed sei whales along the continental shelf edge only during the spring and summer (CETAP, 1982). In the RI/MA WEA, sei whales were also only observed during the spring (eight sightings) and summer (13 sightings). No sightings were reported in the WEA during the fall and winter (Kraus
Sei whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, and the Nova Scotia stock is considered strategic and depleted under the MMPA. The main threats to this stock are interactions with fisheries and vessel collisions. Impacts from environmental contaminants also present a concern as well as potential spatial shifts in distribution related to climate change (Hayes
Minke whales can be found in temperate, tropical, and high-latitude waters. The Canadian East Coast stock can be found in the area from the western half of the Davis Strait (45° W) to the Gulf of Mexico (Hayes
Little is known about their specific migratory behavior compared to other large whale species; however, acoustic detections show that minke whales migrate south in mid-October to early November and return from wintering grounds starting in March through early April (Risch
Since January 2017, elevated minke whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with a total of 123 strandings (as of July 14, 2022). This event has been declared a UME. Full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on more than 60 percent of the whales. Preliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious disease, but these findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more research is needed. More information is available at:
The distribution of the sperm whale in the U.S. EEZ occurs on the continental shelf edge, over the continental slope, and into mid-ocean regions (Hayes
CETAP and NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center sightings in shelf-edge and off-shelf waters included many social groups with calves/juveniles (CETAP, 1982). Sperm whales were usually seen at locations corresponding to the tops of the seamounts and rises and did not generally occur over the slopes. Sperm whales were recorded at the surface over depths varying from 800 to 3,500 m. Kraus
Sperm whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, and the North Atlantic stock is considered
Long-finned pilot whales are found from North Carolina north to Iceland, Greenland, and the Barents Sea (Sergeant, 1962; Leatherwood
Striped dolphins are widely distributed in tropical and warm temperate waters of the Western North Atlantic ranging from Nova Scotia to the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (Archer and Perrin, 1997; Archer, 2002; Hayes
There are few reported occurrences of striped dolphins in the project area. All CETAP records reported striped dolphins in waters greater than 900m; although it was noted that the most northern sightings aligned with warm core rings of the Gulf Stream (Hayes
Atlantic white-sided dolphins observed off the U.S. Atlantic coast are part of the Western North Atlantic Stock (Hayes
Offshore Rhode Island, Atlantic white-sided dolphins are common in continental shelf waters, with a slight tendency to occur in shallower waters in the spring (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Aggregations of sightings have occurred southeast of Montauk Point during the spring and summer. In the RI-MA WEA, Atlantic white-sided dolphins were sighted primarily during summer followed by fall (Kraus
There are two distinct bottlenose dolphin ecotypes in the western North Atlantic: The coastal and offshore forms (Duffield
Common bottlenose dolphins were observed in the RI/MA WEA in all seasons with the highest seasonal abundance estimates during the fall, summer, and spring. The greatest concentrations of bottlenose dolphins were observed in the southernmost portion of the RI/MA WEA (Kraus
Common dolphins within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ belong to the Western North Atlantic stock, generally occurring from Cape Hatteras to the Scotian Shelf (Hayes
Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in tropical and warm temperate waters ranging from southern New England, south to Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes
There are few reported occurrences of spotted dolphins (
Risso's dolphins occur worldwide in both tropical and temperate waters (Jefferson
Offshore Rhode Island, Risso's dolphins have been observed year-round, with a peak abundance during the summer. Primarily observed along the continental shelf break, few individuals are typically seen in waters shallower than 100 m (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
The harbor porpoise occupies U.S. and Canadian waters. During summer (July to September), harbor porpoises are generally concentrated along the continental shelf within the northern Gulf of Maine, southern Bay of Fundy region, and around the southern tip of Nova Scotia, generally in waters less than 150 m deep (Gaskin, 1977; Kraus
There are four distinct populations of harbor porpoise in the western Atlantic: Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and Greenland (Gaskin, 1984, 1992; Hayes
The main threat to the species is interactions with fisheries, with documented take in the U.S. northeast sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic gillnet, and northeast bottom trawl fisheries and in the Canadian herring weir fisheries (Waring
Harbor seals are found throughout coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjoining seas above 30° N (Burns, 2009; Desportes
In addition to coastal waters, harbor seals use terrestrial habitat as haul-out sites throughout the year, but primarily during the pupping and molting periods, which occur from late spring to late summer in the northern portion of their range. No pupping areas have been identified in southern New England, but there are several haul-out sites on Block Island and six haul-out sites have been identified in Narragansett Bay (Barlas, 1999; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
From July 2018 through March 2020, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities occurred across Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Additionally, stranded seals showed clinical signs as far south as Virginia, although not in elevated numbers. This even was declared a UME, and the UME investigation encompassed all seal strandings from Maine to Virginia. A total of 3,152 reported strandings (both harbor and gray seals) occurred during the UME. Full or partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on some of the seals and samples have been collected for testing. Based on tests conducted as of April 30, 2021, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus. NMFS is performing additional testing to identify any other factors that may be involved in this UME. This UME was declared from 2018 through 2020, and is currently pending closure to become non-active. Therefore, this UME will not be addressed further in this document. Further information is available at:
There are three major populations of gray seals found in the world: eastern Canada (western North Atlantic stock), northwestern Europe and the Baltic Sea. Gray seals in the project area belong to the western North Atlantic stock. The range for this stock is thought to be from New Jersey to Labrador (Davies, 1957; Mansfield, 1966; Katona
In U.S. waters, pupping sites are located from Maine to Massachusetts (Wood
Current population trends show that gray seal abundance is likely increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Hayes
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Sixteen marine mammal species (14 cetacean and 2 pinniped (both phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean species that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a discussion of the ways that Orsted's specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified activities have been provided in other recent
Underwater sound from active acoustic sources can include one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking. The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall
The following subsections provide examples of behavioral responses that provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal species to sound and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to which a marine mammal may be exposed. Behavioral responses that could occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the literature that is available for each species, or extrapolated from closely related species when no information exists, along with contextual factors. Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, the stock, or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal. Goldbogen
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
In addition, sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
To assess the strength of behavioral changes and responses to external sounds and SPLs associated with changes in behavior, Southall
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function. We expect minimal stress responses to result from marine mammals due to the short-term duration of activities and proposed mitigation measures.
The HRG survey equipment will not contact the seafloor and does not represent a source of pollution. As the HRG survey equipment introduces noise to the marine environment, there is the potential for it to result in avoidance of the area around the HRG survey activities on the part of marine mammal prey. Any avoidance of the area on the part of marine mammal prey would be
Due to the temporary nature of the disturbance, and the availability of similar habitat and resources (
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the animal. These interactions are typically associated with large whales, which are less maneuverable than are smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to large vessels. Ship strikes generally involve commercial shipping vessels, which are generally larger (
The potential effects of Orsted's specified survey activity are expected to be limited to Level B behavioral harassment. Temporary and minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat, including prey, may occur.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization 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 would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to certain HRG sources. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
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:
Orsted's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (
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.
NMFS has developed a user-friendly methodology for determining the rms sound pressure level (SPL
The harassment zone, also known as the Zone of Influence (ZOI), is a representation of the maximum extent of the ensonified area around a sound source over a 24-hr period. The ZOI was calculated for mobile sound sources per the following formula:
Where r is the linear distance from the source to the isopleth for the Level B harassment threshold.
The estimated potential daily active survey distance of 70 km was used as the estimated areal coverage over a 24-hr period. This distance accounts for the vessel traveling at roughly 4 kn (2.1 m/s) and only for periods during which equipment <180 kHz is in operation. A vessel traveling 4 kn (2.1 m/s) can cover approximately 110 km per day; however, based on data collected since 2017, survey coverage over a 24-hour period is closer to 70 km per day as a result of delays due to,
NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to represent the best available information on source levels associated with HRG equipment and, therefore, recommends that source levels provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in the method described above to estimate isopleth distances to harassment thresholds. In cases, when the source level for a specific type of HRG equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS recommends that either the source levels provided by the manufacturer be used, or, in instances where source levels provided by the manufacturer are unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. Table 2 shows the HRG equipment types that may be used during the proposed surveys and the source levels associated with those HRG equipment types.
Based upon modeling results, of the HRG survey equipment planned for use by Orsted that has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals, the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD and GeoMarine Geo-Source sparkers would produce the largest Level B harassment isopleth (141 m) or ZOI. Estimated distances to Level B harassment isopleths for all sources evaluated here, including the sparkers, are provided in Table 6. Although Orsted does not expect to use sparker sources on all planned survey days, Orsted proposes to assume for purposes of analysis that the sparker would be used on all survey days. This is a conservative approach, as the actual sources used on individual survey days may produce smaller harassment distances.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information that will inform the take calculations.
Habitat based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts
For exposure analysis, density data from Roberts (2022) were mapped using a geographic information system (GIS). Density grid cells that included any portion of the proposed project area were selected for all survey months (see Figure 3 of Orsted's application). Given the variability in level of effort between the Lease Areas and the ECR area, densities were separated for the three Lease Areas (OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500) and the ECR area. The densities for each species as reported by Roberts
Given their size and behavior when in the water, seals are difficult to identify during shipboard visual surveys and limited information is currently available on their distribution. Therefore, data used to establish the density estimates from Roberts
Long- and short-finned pilot whales are also difficult to distinguish during shipboard surveys so individual habitat models were not able to be developed for these species. As only long-finned pilot whales are expected to occur within the study area, pilot whale densities within the study area were attributed to this species.
For bottlenose dolphin densities, Roberts (2022) does not differentiate by stock. As previously discussed, only the Western North Atlantic offshore stock is expected to occur in the proposed project area. Thus, all bottlenose dolphin density estimates within the project area were attributed to the offshore stock.
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
Level B exposures were estimated by multiplying the average annual density of each species within the project area (Table 7) by the largest ZOI that was estimated to be ensonified to an SPL exceeding 160 dB re 1 µPa (141m; Table 6). That result was then multiplied by the number of survey days in that Lease Area or ECR (Table 1), and rounded to the nearest whole number to arrive at estimated take. This final number equals the instances of take for the entire operational period. It was assumed the sparker systems were operating all 400 survey days as it is the sound source expected to produce the largest harassment zone. A summary of this method is illustrated in the following formula with the resulting proposed take of marine mammals is shown below in Table 8:
Estimated take = species density × ZOI × # of survey days
Additional data regarding average group sizes from survey effort in the region was considered to ensure adequate take estimates are evaluated. Take estimates for several species were adjusted based upon observed group sizes in the area. The adjusted take estimates for these species are indicated in bold in Table 8. These calculated take estimates were adjusted for these species as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PSO data for adjusting take estimates of minke whales, humpback whales, common bottlenose dolphins, and common dolphins was derived from draft PSO observer reports from surveys conducted in the project lease areas and ECR from 2020-2021, as shown in Table 13 of Orsted's application.
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
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.
NMFS proposes the following mitigation measures be implemented during Orsted's proposed marine site characterization surveys. Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, NEETMA would also be required to adhere to relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic consultation (specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast (
Marine mammal shutdown zones would be established around impulsive HRG survey equipment (<180 kHz;
• A 500-meter (m) Shutdown Zone for North Atlantic right whales for use of impulsive acoustic sources (
• A 100-m shutdown zone for use of impulsive acoustic sources for all other marine mammals, with the exception of delphinids belonging to the Family
Shutdown will remain in effect until the minimum separation distances (detailed above) between the animal and noise source are re-established. If a marine mammal enters the respective shutdown zone during a shutdown period, the equipment may not restart until that animal is confirmed outside the clearance zone as stated previously in the pre-start clearance procedures. These stated requirements will be included in the site-specific training to be provided to the survey team.
Marine mammal clearance zones would be established at the following distances around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by PSOs:
• 500 m for all ESA-listed marine mammals;
• 100 m for all other whales; and
• 50 m for dolphins and porpoises.
Orsted would implement a 30-minute pre-start clearance period prior to the initiation of ramp-up of specified HRG equipment. During this period, clearance zones will be monitored by PSOs, using the appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal(s) is within its respective clearance zone. If a marine mammal is observed within a clearance zone during the pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting its respective exclusion zone or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting (
A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source when technically feasible. The ramp-up procedure would be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment operation at full power. Operators should ramp-up sources to half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power.
The ramp-up procedure will not be initiated (
Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and ramp-up procedures are not required during HRG survey operations using only non-impulsive sources (
Orsted must adhere to the following measures except in the case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
• Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all protected species and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any protected species. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone based on the
a. All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-knot speed restriction in specified areas designated by NMFS for the protection of North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes including seasonal management areas (SMAs) and dynamic management areas (DMAs) when in effect;
b. Members of the monitoring team will consult NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting system and Whale Alert, as able, for the presence of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations, and for the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the project area during the survey, the vessels will abide by speed restrictions in the DMA;
c. All vessels greater than or equal to 19.8 m in overall length operating from November 1 through April 30 will operate at speeds of 10 kn (5.1 m/s) or less at all times;
d. All vessels must reduce their speed to 10 kn (5.1 m/s) or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of any species of cetaceans is observed near a vessel;
e. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m from right whales and other ESA-listed large whales;
f. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a right whale or other ESA-listed large whale, the vessel operator must assume that it is a right whale and take appropriate action;
g. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from non-ESA listed whales;
• All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
• When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (
Project-specific training will be conducted for all vessel crew prior to the start of a survey and during any changes in crew such that all survey personnel are fully aware and understand the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Prior to implementation with vessel crews, the training program will be provided to NMFS for review and approval. Confirmation of the training and understanding of the requirements will be documented on a training course log sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify that the crew member understands and will comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey activities.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual monitoring will be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities. Orsted would employ independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must (1) be employed by a third-party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an approved PSO training course appropriate for their designated task. On a case-by-case basis, non-independent observers may be approved by NMFS for limited, specified duties in support of approved, independent PSOs on smaller vessels with limited crew operating in nearshore waters.
The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding each survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting conditions, including shutdown and pre-clearance zones, during all HRG survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine mammals, including those approaching or entering the established shutdown and pre-clearance zones during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the
During all HRG survey operations (
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in proximity to exclusion zones. Reticulated binoculars must also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine mammals. During nighttime operations, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons and infrared technology would be used. Position data would be recorded using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each sighting.
During good conditions (
Within 90 days after completion of survey activities or expiration of this IHA, whichever comes sooner, a draft comprehensive report will be provided to NMFS that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, summarizes the number of marine mammals observed during survey activities (by species, when known), summarizes the mitigation actions taken during surveys including what type of mitigation and the species and number of animals that prompted the mitigation action, when known), and provides an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all mitigation and monitoring. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following any comments on the draft report. All draft and final marine mammal and acoustic monitoring reports must be submitted to
a. PSO names and affiliations;
a. Dates of departures and returns to port with port names;
b. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and times corresponding with PSO effort;
c. Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
d. Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
e. Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
• Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (
• Survey activity information, such as type of survey equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in operation, and any other notes of significance (
If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be recorded:
a. Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
b. PSO who sighted the animal;
c. Time of sighting;
d. Vessel location at time of sighting;
e. Water depth;
f. Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
g. Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
h. Pace of the animal;
i. Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to vessel at initial sighting;
• Identification of the animal (
a. Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
b. Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
c. Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
• Detailed behavior observations (
a. Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source;
• Platform activity at time of sighting (
• Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
If a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any time by PSOs or personnel on any project vessels, during surveys or during vessel transit, Orsted must immediately report sighting information to the NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System: (866) 755-6622. North Atlantic right whale sightings in any location may also be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16.
In the event that Orsted personnel discover an injured or dead marine
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
a. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
b. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
c. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
d. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
e. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
In the unanticipated event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in this activities covered by the IHA, Orsted would report the incident to NMFS OPR and the NMFS New/England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report would include the following information:
a. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
b. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
c. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
d. Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
e. Status of all sound sources in use;
f. Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
g. Environmental conditions (
h. Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
i. Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and following the strike;
j. If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
k. Estimated fate of the animal (
l. To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks—as is the case of the North Atlantic right whale—they are included as separate subsections below. NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result from HRG surveys, even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section, non-auditory physical effects and vessel strike are not expected to occur. NMFS expects that all potential takes would be in the form of Level B behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment zone around the survey vessel is 141 m. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding each vessel is relatively small compared to the overall distribution of the animals in the area and their use of the habitat. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the project area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project area. Several harbor and gray seal haul out sites have been identified on Block Island, Great Gull Island, and Fishers Island as wells as along Narragansett and Nantucket Sounds. As the acoustic footprint of the proposed HRG activities is relatively small, hauled seals are not expected to be impacted by these activities. In addition, cable landfall sites have yet to be determined and may not be in the vicinity of haul out sites. The proposed ECR area encompasses a feeding BIA for fin whales east of Montauk Point, NY that is active from March through October (LaBrecque
The status of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) population is of heightened concern and therefore, merits additional analysis. As noted previously, elevated NARW mortalities began in June 2017 and there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings support human interactions, specifically vessel strikes and entanglements, as the cause of death for the majority of right whales. The proposed project area overlaps with a migratory corridor BIA for North Atlantic right whales (effective March-April; November-December) that extends from Massachusetts to Florida and, off the coast of NY and RI, from the coast to beyond the shelf break (LaBrecque
As noted previously, there are several active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of Orsted's proposed project area. Elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida since January 2016. Of the cases examined, approximately half had evidence of human interaction (ship strike or entanglement). The UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts. Despite the UME, the relevant population of humpback whales (the West Indies breeding population, or DPS) remains stable at approximately 12,000 individuals.
Beginning in January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. This event does not provide cause for concern regarding population level impacts, as the likely population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales.
The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of proposed takes for all species listed in Table 3, including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable adverse impact. In particular, they would provide animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing them from being exposed to more severe Level B harassment. No Level A harassment is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or proposed for authorization.
NMFS expects that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment by way of brief startling reactions and/or temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging in the area (if such activity was occurring)—reactions that (at the scale and intensity anticipated here) are considered to be of low severity, with no lasting biological consequences. Since both the sources and marine mammals are mobile, animals would only be exposed briefly to a small ensonified area that might result in take. Required mitigation measures, such as shutdown zones and ramp up, would further reduce exposure to sound that could result in more severe behavioral harassment.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or proposed for authorization;
• Foraging success is not likely to be significantly impacted as effects on species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the survey are expected to be minimal;
• The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the ensonified area during the planned surveys to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
• Take is anticipated to be of Level B behavioral harassment only consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance of the ensonified area;
• While the project area is within areas noted as a migratory BIA and SMA for North Atlantic right whales, the activities would occur in such a comparatively small area such that any avoidance of the ensonified area due to activities would not affect migration. In addition, mitigation measures require shutdown at 500 m (almost four times the size of the Level B harassment isopleth (141 m), which minimizes the effects of the take on the species; and
• The proposed mitigation measures, including visual monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity 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
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of the estimated stock abundance for all species (in fact, take of individuals is less than 6 percent of the abundance of the affected stocks for these species, see Table 8). The figures presented in Table 8 are likely conservative estimates as they assume all takes are of different individual animals which is likely not to be the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA, including the North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale, and has determined that these activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed 107 in GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021).
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Orsted for conducting site characterization surveys off the coast of New York and Rhode Island from September 25, 2022 through September 24, 2023, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed HRG surveys. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activities section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 25, 2022.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Teri Caswell, Broadband
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Teri Caswell, Broadband Program Specialist, Grants Management and Compliance, Office of internet Connectivity and Growth, National Telecommunication and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4826, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 2021 (Infrastructure Act or Act), which was adopted on November 15, 2021, and is also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provided $65 billion of funding for programs to close the digital divide and ensure that all Americans have access to reliable, high speed, and affordable broadband service. NTIA administers six broadband connectivity grant programs funded by the Act, including the State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program and the Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program. The State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program (SDEPG) provides new federal funding for grants to eligible applicants for the purpose of developing State Digital Equity Plans. Through these Plans, each State will, among other things, identify barriers to digital equity in the State and strategies for overcoming those barriers. Further, U.S. territories and possessions (other than Puerto Rico), Indian Tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations may also seek grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to develop their own digital equity plans and, in the case of Tribal entities, to provide input into the digital equity plans of the States in which they are located. The purpose of SDEPG is to promote the achievement of digital equity, support digital inclusion activities, and build capacity for efforts by States relating to the adoption of broadband by residents of those States.
The Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program (MMG) provides funding for the construction, improvement, or acquisition of middle mile infrastructure. The purpose of the grant program is to expand and extend middle mile infrastructure to reduce the cost of connecting areas that are unserved or underserved to the internet backbone.
On May 13, 2022, NTIA published the State Digital Equity Program's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and the Enabling Middle Mile Grant Program's NOFO on
In past application processes, such as those funded through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, NTIA provided broad guidelines to collect programmatic and project data, such as project descriptions and detailed budget information, from applicants. This approach resulted in an increased burden for both applicants and reviewers, as vital information was often left out of their application. Many applicants are Tribal governments or entities who do not possess the resources necessary for the preparation of application materials, such as project narratives and financial information, without templates to guide them. As such, NTIA sought to make this process more equitable for potential applicants of the State Digital Equity Planning Grant program and Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program by providing more concrete guidance to potential applicants about NTIA's expectations for application submissions, with the goal of making the process more accessible regardless of organizational capacity. NTIA created new forms for use in the application process to provide more structured questions and guidance. These forms supported program objectives by improving both the accuracy and consistency of application information while reducing the administrative burden to both applicants and NTIA.
NTIA received emergency OMB approval to collect information from applicants using these new forms and is now seeking an extension beyond the November 30, 2022, expiration date.
NTIA will use the information collected from each applicant to effectively review the proposed applications and budgets from U.S. Territories and Possessions, Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations for the State Digital Equity Program, and from States, political subdivisions of States, Tribal governments, technology companies, electric utilities, utility cooperatives, public utility districts, telecommunications companies, telecommunications cooperatives, non-profit foundations, and other eligible entities for the Middle Mile Grant Program.
NTIA will collect data through both electronic and mail submission.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: September 25, 2022.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 325 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and deletes product(s) and service(s) from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 325 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, or email
On 6/21/2022, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
On 6/3/2022, 6/17/2022, and 6/24/2022, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Thursday, August 25, 2022; 10:00 a.m.* Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00).
Commission meeting—Open to the public.
Public briefing on Magnets final rule.
Abioye E. Mosheim, Acting Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479.
* The Commission unanimously determined by recorded vote that Agency business requires calling the meeting without seven calendar days advance public notice.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of availability and request for comment.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) has approved a Draft Strategic Plan for 2023-2026 and CPSC seeks comments from the public on this document as part of its strategic planning process.
Comments must be received by September 26, 2022.
You can submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2022-0031, by any of the following methods:
Daniel Kim, Office of Budget, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7816; email:
The CPSC is an independent federal regulatory agency with a public health and safety mission to protect the public from the unreasonable risks of injury and death from consumer products. The CPSC is providing notice that the agency is seeking public comments on its Draft Strategic Plan for 2023-2026 (draft plan).
The strategic goals are:
• Prevent hazardous products from reaching consumers.
• Address hazardous consumer products in the marketplace and with consumers in a fast and effective manner.
• Communicate actionable information about consumer product safety quickly and effectively.
• Efficiently and effectively support the CPSC's mission.
The CPSC's programs will align with the strategic goals, and the agency will implement strategies through initiatives and priority activities to achieve the strategic goals. The draft plan sets out how the CPSC will pursue the four strategic goals. The draft plan is available on the Commission's website at:
The draft plan serves as a draft of the Commission's intended Strategic Plan for 2023-2026. The CPSC accordingly seeks comments on all aspects of the draft plan. CPSC has a wide range of external stakeholders from industry, trade associations, consumers and consumer groups, nonprofits, and standards development organizations, as well as from the international, congressional, federal, state, and local sectors. The agency looks forward to receiving comments from all individuals and entities involved in, and affected by, the CPSC's activities. Please provide comments as directed in the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission), announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval for information collection related to testing and recordkeeping requirements in the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers, previously approved under OMB Control No. 3041-0091. On June 8, 2022, CPSC published a notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by September 26, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to:
Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7991, or by email to:
On June 8, 2022, CPSC published a notice in the
CPSC has increased the estimated time burden for conducting a reasonable testing program from 3 hours daily, to 8 and increased the estimate of the total hour burden for testing by industry from 11,310 hours to 30,160 hours. Accordingly, the estimated annual cost burden for testing by industry is increased from $796,224 to $2,308,936.50. The CPSC hourly wage estimate matches the description of the technical expertise needed, as described by OPEI. With these changes, CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
In addition, section 14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of a consumer product subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate stating that the product complies with all applicable consumer product safety standards. Section 14(a) of the CPSA also requires that the certificate of compliance must be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program. The information collection is necessary because these regulations require manufacturers and importers to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing and labeling to support the certification of compliance.
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received by October 25, 2022.
Comments and requests for copies of the subject information collection may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
Agency Submitting Officer: Deborah Papadopoulos, (202) 357-3979.
This notice informs the public that DFC will submit to OMB a request for approval of the following information collection.
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received by September 26, 2022.
Comments and requests for copies of the subject information collection may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
Agency Submitting Officer: Deborah Papadopoulos, (202) 357-3979.
The agency received no comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Policy Board (DPB) will take place.
Closed to the public; Tuesday, September 6, 2022, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Closed to the public; Wednesday, September 7, 2022 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The closed meetings will be held at The Pentagon, 2000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-2000.
Ms. Stacee Bako, (703) 571-9234 (Voice), 703-697-8606 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., app.), the Government in the Sunshine Act (“the Sunshine Act”) (5 U.S.C. 552b), and title 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), the DPB was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its September 6-7 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
Institute of Educational Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 26, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carrie Clarady, 202-245-6347.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public record.
The purpose of this submission is to propose and seek 30-day public comment on new items (within the scope of research domains both previously established and minimally revised in this request; see Part A changes detailed below) to be collected on the October, November, and December instruments (Appendix B.6). These items are considered very close to final and will go through minimal testing with school personnel to examine any comprehension concerns with item wording. Feedback from this testing, as well as additional input from SPP stakeholders, will result in modifications and additions that will be reflected in future change requests. Some previously approved items that are considered core content will be collected in during these months. Specifically, items on learning modes, quarantine, and possibly items on after-school programs will be repeated to maintain trend over time. In addition to the changes in Appendix B (new items) and Part A (overall description of the study), updated screenshots were also added to Appendix A (communication materials) in order to keep the materials current, and additional details were added to the descriptions of our cognitive testing process in Part B. The costs to the government have not changed as a result of this revision nor has the projected respondent burden.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years a currently approved collection of information with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The information collection request, Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), was previously approved on May 31, 2020, under OMB Control No. 1910-5127 and its current expiration date is May 31, 2023. This ICR will include WAP Annual Appropriations and Weatherization Readiness Funds, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and Multi-Family Buildings. This ICR makes updates to the WAP reporting metrics to ensure the requested information can be shared on an annual basis with Congress.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 25, 2022. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to Brittany Price by email to the following address:
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including 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 accepting only electronic submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact the DOE staff person listed in this notice.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Brittany Price, EE-5W, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121 or by email or phone at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. This information collection request contains: (1)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 12, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of MTSun LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 12, 2022.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
On August 31, 2021, Little Falls Hydroelectric Associates, LP (Little Falls Associates) filed an application for a new major license for the 13.3-megawatt Little Falls Hydroelectric Project (Little Falls Project; FERC No. 3509). The Little Falls Project is located on the Mohawk River, in the City of Little Falls, Herkimer County, New York. The project does not occupy federal land.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on May 25, 2022, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the Little Falls Project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any
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:
Take notice that on August 16, 2022, National Grid LNG LLC (National Grid) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time (2022 Extension of Time Request), until June 1, 2023, to complete construction of, and place into service, its Fields Point Liquefaction Project located in Providence, RI as authorized in the October 17, 2018 Order Issuing Certificate (Certificate Order).
On December 8, 2020 National Grid filed a request for an extension of time for an additional twelve months to complete construction and place into service the authorized construction at the LNG storage facility at Fields Point. National Grid was granted a one-year extension of time, until and including October 17, 2022, to complete abandonment activities authorized in the above referenced docket.
National Grid states that the Project was on-schedule to be placed in service before October 17, 2022, however, National Grid had to suspend the testing and commissioning process on May 23, 2022, due to objections from the PPL Corporation-owned LDC regarding odorant levels in the tail gas flowing into the LDC system on that date. National Grid states that despite diligent efforts to design, engineer and procure all of the components for the mercaptan removal system, supply chain delays have occurred. National Grid states that potential supply shortfall could lead to further delays in completing the testing to begin service until the following Spring. For that reason and dependence upon meteorological conditions during the Fall months, National Grid requests an extension to June 1, 2023 for the date to place the facilities in service.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on National Grid's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
As first announced in the Notice of Forum issued in the above-referenced proceeding on May 19, 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a Commissioner-led forum on Thursday, September 8, 2022, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, to discuss the electricity and natural gas challenges facing the New England Region. The forum will be open to the public and held in the Emerald I & II Ballroom at the DoubleTree by Hilton Burlington Vermont, 870 Williston Rd., South Burlington, VT 05403.
The updated agenda for this forum is attached, which includes the final forum panelists. All changes to this agenda since the Commission's July 21, 2022 Supplemental Notice of New England Winter Gas-Electric Forum appear in italics.
The purpose of the forum is to bring together stakeholders in New England to discuss the challenges faced historically during New England winters and discuss the stakeholders' differing expectations of challenges for future winters. The objectives of the forum are to achieve greater consensus or agreement among stakeholders in defining the electric and natural gas system challenges in New England and identify what, if any, steps are needed to better understand those challenges before identifying solutions.
While the forum is not for the purpose of discussing any specific matters before the Commission, some forum discussions may involve issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to—changes or additions to the list below appear in italics:
Only
Registration for in-person attendance is required, and there is no fee for attendance. A link to attendee registration is available on the New England Winter Gas-Electric Forum event page. Due to space constraints, seating for this event will be limited and registrants that get a confirmed space will be contacted via email. Only confirmed registrants can be admitted to the forum given the maximum occupancy limit at the venue (as required by fire and building safety code). Therefore, the Commission encourages members of the public who wish to attend this event in person to register at their earliest convenience. Online registration will be open, as long as attendance capacity is available, until the day before the forum (September 7). Once registration has reached capacity, registration will be closed. However, those interested in attending after capacity has been reached can join a waiting list (using the same registration link) and be notified if space becomes available. Those who are unable to attend in person may watch the free webcast.
The webcast will allow persons to listen and observe the forum remotely but not participate. Information on this forum, including a link to the webcast, will be posted prior to the event on this forum's event page on the Commission's website. A recording of the webcast will be made available after the forum in the same location on the Calendar of Events. The forum will be transcribed. Transcripts of the forum will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202-347-3700).
Additionally, please note that the Commission will be implementing health and safety restrictions, as appropriate, associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID Community Level mitigations. This may include requiring all participants to wear cloth face covers or masks as well as further limiting venue occupancy if Chittenden County is designated as having a high-community level in data expected to be released on the evening of Thursday, September 1. The CDC Community Level tracker may be found at the CDC COVID Data Tracker site.
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
For more information about this forum, please contact
Take notice that on August 12, 2022, Big Dog Midstream LLC (Big Dog Midstream), 104 Bradford Road, Wexford, PA 15090, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for a limited jurisdiction certificate in order to provide transportation service on the Taylor County Field gathering system in Taylor County, West Virginia (Taylor County Field), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
Big Dog Midstream also seeks a determination by the Commission that the interstate transportation service proposed herein will not change the status of the Taylor County Field as being exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the NGA or affect the non-jurisdictional status of any other operation or service in which Big Dog Midstream is currently engaged.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Thomas C. Ryan, Partner, K&L Gates, 210 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222; by phone at (412) 355-8335; or by email to
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 12, 2022.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before September 12, 2022.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP22-497-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address below.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP22-497-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: Thomas C. Ryan, Partner, K&L Gates, 210 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222; or by email to
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “EPA Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act” (EPA ICR no. 2549.03, OMB Control No. 2040-0292) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a renewal. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0178, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Amelia Letnes, WIFIA Management Division, Office of Wastewater Management, 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
WIFIA requires that an eligible entity submit to the Administrator an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information, as the Secretary or the Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), the Air Stationary Source Compliance and Enforcement Information Reporting (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 0107.13, OMB Control No. 2060-0096) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the currently approved ICR. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2018-0248, online using
The EPA's policy is that all relevant comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. We encourage the public to submit comments via
Mr. David A. Meredith, Enforcement Targeting and Data Division, Office of Compliance, (2222A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4152; 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
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The EPA collects compliance data from regulated sources via CEDRI and tracks enforcement and compliance monitoring information for stationary sources from delegated agencies and EPA Regions via ICIS-Air. The EPA is considering a process to standardize the facility identification process so that data can easily be shared across systems. As such, the EPA seeks comments,
• The EPA seeks comments on whether it would be beneficial for the EPA to import facilities from CEDRI into ICIS-Air that are currently not found in ICIS-Air and create a means to link those facilities for purposes of more comprehensive compliance tracking. Additionally, we are seeking comment on, for cases where a delegated agency uses EDT to share data with EPA, whether the delegated agency would want the ability to create facilities from CEDRI facilities and manage those data in the delegated agency's database.
• Assuming that some delegated agencies are reviewing compliance reports within CEDRI, the EPA seeks comments on how data within the CEDRI reports could be provided to ICIS-Air to reduce the need for overlapping data entry in ICIS-Air. We are seeking comment on whether delegated agencies perceive that there are identical data in CEDRI reports and data uploads into ICIS-Air, and whether data exists in CEDRI but not in ICIS-Air that would be helpful to share with ICIS-Air. We are specifically seeking comment on which data would be most helpful to share between the systems.
• The EPA is seeking comment on the utility of future functionality that would automatically flag situations within ICIS-Air when a CEDRI compliance report is due, but not received by the deadline.
• The EPA is seeking information on whether delegated agencies that do not currently provide Title V Certifications to CEDRI plan to do so in the near future.
• The EPA seeks comments on whether we should consider requiring that violations have a linkage to a discovery action, or CEDRI ID number, so that ECHO users can understand the activity that led to the violation finding(s).
• The EPA seeks comments on whether we should consider, in the future, developing a new reporting approach for delegated agencies that provide the CEDRI document ID to limit potential duplicate data entry (for example, linking certain fields that would not have to be manually entered).
• The EPA has begun collecting benzene fenceline monitoring data from refineries on a bi-weekly basis. We seek comment on whether, when deficiencies are noted that require follow-up actions by the facility, those deficiencies should be populated into ICIS-Air and shared via ECHO.
• Through CEDRI, the EPA is receiving performance reports directly from regulated entities. Some of these reports are used by delegated agencies to make compliance determinations. The EPA seeks comments on the effectiveness of the current process of making these reports accessible through the Agency's WebFIRE website and suggestions for improvements that could assist delegated agencies with making compliance determinations.
• Finally, we seek comments on whether having a common facility numbering protocol for ICIS-Air and CEDRI would improve the overall management of the CAA program and associated data.
Although we are soliciting comment on these issues, the EPA intends to continue the status quo with respect to the minimum data requirements reported to ICIS-Air at this time. We will consider any comments received as we evaluate potential future improvements to the integration of information collected via ICIS-Air and CEDRI. The anticipated burden requirements for the current minimum data requirements associated with ICIS-Air are as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a modified system of records.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC, Commission, or Agency) proposes to modify an existing system of records, FCC-2, Business Contacts and Certifications, subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the
This modified system of records will become effective on August 26, 2022. Written comments on the routine uses are due by September 26, 2022. The routine uses will become effective on September 26, 2022, unless written comments are received that require a contrary determination.
Send comments to Brendan McTaggart, at
Brendan McTaggart, (202) 418-1738, or
FCC-2, Business Contacts and Certifications
Unclassified.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554; Universal Service Administrative Company, 700 12th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005; or FISMA compliant contractor.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC); Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC); or FISMA compliant contractor.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154 (i)-(j) & (o), 155, 251(e)(3), 254, 257, 301, 303, 332, 402, 1302; and 5 U.S.C. 602(c) and 609(a)(3).
The FCC and organizations administering programs on behalf of the FCC use this system to collect and maintain points of contact at entities regulated by the FCC and in related industries, as well as contractors, vendors, and those performing collateral duties for the FCC, to ensure compliance with applicable Federal laws and FCC rules, including through certifications of information provided to the Commission. The FCC also uses this system to collect and maintain contact information and certifications from other Federal, state, local, U.S. territorial, and Tribal government entities that administer, support, participate in, or receive information related to, FCC programs and activities.
Individuals, including points of contact for and those who certify on behalf of, businesses as well as Federal, state, local, U.S. territorial, or Tribal governmental entities.
Contact information, such as name, username, signature, phone numbers, emails, and addresses, as well as work and educational history.
Information in this system is provided by individuals, including points of contact for and those who certify on behalf of: FCC contractors; vendors; those providing collateral duties to the FCC; regulated entities and entities in related industries; and Federal, state, local, U.S. territorial, and Tribal government entities.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows.
1. Public Access—Contact information and certifications made by individuals contained in this system may be made available for public inspection to comply with FCC regulations that require public disclosure of this information, or in Commission releases, including notices of proposed rulemaking, public notices, orders, and other actions released by the Commission.
2. Authorized Third Parties—Contact information and certifications made by individuals contained in this system may be shared with authorized third parties, including individuals and businesses in regulated and related industries, FCC vendors, and their contractors, to administer, support, participate in, or receive information related to, FCC programs and activities; or to ensure compliance with the confidentiality and other rules regarding information sharing in the FCC's programs and activities.
3. Federal Agencies—Contact information and certifications made by individuals contained in this system may be shared with other Federal agencies in order to administer, support, participate in, or receive information related to, FCC programs and activities.
4. State, Local, U.S. Territorial, and Tribal Government Entities—Contact information and certifications made by individuals contained in this system may be shared with authorized state, local, U.S. territorial and Tribal government entities to administer, support, participate in, or receive information related to, FCC programs and activities.
5. Litigation—To disclose records to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when: (a) the FCC or any component thereof; (b) any employee of the FCC in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the FCC in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ or the FCC has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the FCC determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the FCC collected the records.
6. Adjudication—To disclose records in a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body, when: (a) the FCC or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the FCC in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the FCC in his or her individual capacity; or (d) the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the FCC determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation, and that the use of such records is for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.
7. Law Enforcement and Investigation—To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, local, Tribal agency, or a component of such an agency, responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the FCC becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
8. Congressional Inquiries—To provide information to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Congressional office made at the written request of that individual.
9. Government-wide Program Management and Oversight—To provide information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.
10. Breach Notification—To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of PII maintained in the system of records; (b) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information system, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
11. Assistance to Federal Agencies and Entities Related to Breaches—To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, program, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
12. Non-Federal Personnel—To disclose information to non-Federal personnel, including contractors, grantees, and volunteers who have been engaged to assist the FCC in the performance of a contract service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform their activity.
In addition to the routine uses cited above, the Commission may share information from this system of records with a consumer reporting agency regarding an individual who has not paid a valid and overdue debt owed to the Commission, following the procedures set out in the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
This an electronic system of records that resides on the FCC's network, USAC's network, or on an FCC vendor's network.
Records in this system of records can be retrieved by any category field,
The information in this system is maintained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 6.5, Item 020 (DAA-GRS-2017-0002-0002).
The electronic records, files, and data are stored within FCC, USAC, or a vendor's accreditation boundaries and maintained in a database housed in the FCC's, USAC's, or vendor's computer network databases. Access to the electronic files is restricted to authorized employees and contractors; and to IT staff, contractors, and vendors who maintain the IT networks and services. Other employees and contractors may be granted access on a need-to-know basis. The electronic files and records are protected by the FCC, USAC, and third-party privacy safeguards, a comprehensive and dynamic set of IT safety and security protocols and features that are designed to meet all Federal privacy standards, including those required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Individuals wishing to request access to and/or amendment of records about themselves should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals wishing to request access to and/or amendment of records about themselves should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves may do so by writing to
None.
86 FR 68497 (December 2, 2021).
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.
Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th floor) and virtual.
This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 Community Level and corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting virtually, go to the Commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Acting Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has determined that it is necessary and in the public interest to establish a Federal Advisory Committee on Affordable, Equitable, and Sustainable Housing. A charter has been prepared and will be filed at least 15 days following the date of publication of this notice.
Erin Barry, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Housing & Community Investment, Division of Housing Mission and Goals,
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended), FHFA intends to establish a Federal Advisory Committee on Affordable, Equitable, and Sustainable Housing (Committee). FHFA has determined that it is necessary and in the public interest to establish this Committee in order to fulfill its strategic goal of providing
The purpose of the Committee is to advise FHFA in the exercise of its oversight functions regarding affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing, including but not limited to, affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing needs, barriers to access, barriers to long-term sustainability, and any regulatory, guidance, or policy changes that may be necessary or beneficial to expand such housing. The Committee will focus on FHFA's regulated entities—Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks—and their respective roles in providing a reliable source of liquidity and funding to support housing finance and community investment in the single-family and multifamily housing markets.
The scope of the Committee's activities shall include providing information and analysis in support of advice and recommendations to FHFA. Each Committee meeting will better inform any or all the following: FHFA's policy development, rulemaking, or community and public engagement functions as they relate to affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing.
The duties of the Committee are solely advisory and shall extend only to its submission of advice and recommendations to FHFA, with supporting information and analysis (within the scope of the Committee's activities as defined herein), which shall be non-binding on FHFA.
No determinations of fact or policy shall be made by the Committee. The Committee shall have no decision-making role, and shall have no access to non-public FHFA information, including confidential supervisory or other confidential information.
The FHFA Director shall appoint the members of the Committee. To achieve a fairly balanced membership, FHFA shall seek members representative of diverse communities, points of view, institution asset sizes, and geographical locations, with expertise in affordable, sustainable, or equitable housing in single-family and multifamily housing. The Committee will include members with expertise, applicable to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Banks, in the areas related to the duties and authorities of the Committee, such as: (1) fair lending, fair housing, or civil rights; (2) single-family lending, servicing, development, mortgages, or capital markets; (3) multifamily lending, servicing, development, mortgages, capital markets, or investments (
The Committee shall consist of approximately 20 members, serving two-year terms. Members shall serve at the sole discretion of the Director.
The Committee shall meet at such intervals as are required to carry out its functions. It is estimated that the Committee will meet at least twice per year. Generally, Committee meetings will be open to the public.
Applications and nominations for membership on the Committee will be solicited in a subsequent notice in the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) proposes to amend and reissue a current system of records notice, titled FMCS-0006, Ethics Records. The system will cover the Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports, and agency ethics guidance to employees and FMCS clients. The notice amendment includes significant updates to refine details published under the system manager, authority for maintenance of the system, the purpose, categories of individuals covered, categories of records, record source categories, routine uses, record access procedures, contesting records, and history. These sections are amended to refine previously published information about the system of records. The addresses, system name and number, security classification, system location, policies and practices for storage, policies and practices for retrieval, policies and practices for retention, administrative safeguards, notification procedures, and exemptions remain unchanged. This amended SORN deletes and supersedes the SORN published on the
This system of records will be effective without further notice on September 26, 2022 unless otherwise revised pursuant to comments received. New routine uses will be effective on September 26, 2022. Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2022.
You may send comments, identified by FMCS-0006 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Alisa Zimmerman, Designated Agency Ethics Official and Acting General Counsel, at
In accordance with ethics laws, regulations, and the Code of Professional Conduct for Labor Mediators, FMCS will collect, store, evaluate, and disclose, when necessary, information pertaining to ethics and mediators. FMCS may disclose information pertaining to FMCS parties or clients to address impartiality concerns or explain mediator reassignments. Pursuant to the Code of Professional Conduct and FMCS's mission, the FMCS ethics system may include additional documents pertaining to mediator assets and client notices concerning those assets. This system of records supplements the Office of Government Ethics GOVT-2 system. This system will collect information from FMCS employees serving as mediators and federal employees serving in mediators' supervisory chain. In evaluating ethics concerns, FMCS may also gather information from internal agency sources and departments and store information as part of this system.
The notice amendment includes updates to refine details published under the system manager, authority for maintenance of the system, the purpose, categories of individuals covered, categories of records, record source categories, routine uses, record access procedures, contesting records, and history. These sections are amended to refine previously published information about the system of records. The addresses, system name and number, security classification, system location, policies and practices for storage,
FMCS-0006 Ethics Records.
Unclassified.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Office of General Counsel (OGC), 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20427.
Alisa Zimmerman, Designated Agency Ethics Official and Deputy General Counsel, email
29 U.S.C. 172,
This amended system will reflect mediator obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct for Labor Mediators as referenced in 29 CFR 1400.735-20. This system of records supplements the Office of Government Ethics GOVT-2 system and may contain records collected and maintained to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12674, as modified, 5 CFR part 2634, and subsequent agency regulations, as well as section 107 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended. This system includes the additional collection, documentation, and disclosure of mediator ethical concerns regarding financial conflicts of interest and impartiality, including but not limited to, ethics waivers and authorizations.
Individuals in this system include FMCS employees serving as mediators and in the mediator supervisory chain, and employees designated to file public, confidential, or alternative financial disclosure forms in accordance with 5 CFR 2634.904 and 5 U.S.C. app. 107. It also includes FMCS employees conducting or assigning conflict management cases, including but not limited to, mediations. The system of records includes both current and former Federal employees in these categories.
These records contain statements and amended statements of personal and family holdings and other interests in property, income, gifts, reimbursements, liabilities, agreements, arrangements, outside positions, retirement products, pensions, and other information related to conflict-of-interest determinations. These statements include completed copies of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450 and alternative confidential disclosure forms reflecting more detailed information pertaining to mediator pensions and supplemental agency ethics documents including, but not limited to cautionary memos, recusals, firewalls, waivers, authorizations, acknowledgment of duty to contact the Office of General Counsel, and any statements or certifications concerning no conflicts of interest.
Information in this system of records is provided by:
1. The Federal employee or a designated person such as a trustee, accountant, banker or relative.
2. Federal officials who review the statements to make conflict-of-interest determinations.
3. Persons alleging conflicts of interest or other violations of ethics laws and persons contacted during any investigation of the allegations.
4. FMCS clients, in accordance with 5 CFR 2635.502 and the Code of Professional Conduct for Labor Mediators, acknowledging notice of impartiality concerns.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FMCS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(a) To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule regulation or order where the record, either alone or in conjunction with other information creates an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal laws or regulations.
(b) To the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.
(c) To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or the General Services Administration in records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(d) To a former employee of the agency for purposes of responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable agency regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the agency requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(e) To disclose information to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, detailees, and other non-Government employees performing or working on a contract, service, or other assignment for the Federal Government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(e) To officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 upon receipt of a formal request and in accordance with the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 7114 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
(f) To disclose information to a Member of Congress or a congressional office in response to an inquiry made on behalf of, and at the request of, an individual who is the subject of the record.
(g) To the Department of Justice, including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys; another Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body; another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body; or to a court, adjudicative, or administrative body. Such disclosure is permitted only when it is relevant and necessary to the litigation or proceeding, and one of the following is a party to the
(1) FMCS, or any component thereof;
(2) Any employee or former employee of FMCS in their official capacity;
(3) Any employee or former employee of FMCS in their capacity where the Department of Justice or FMCS has agreed to represent the employee;
(4) The United States, a Federal agency, or another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body, upon the FMCS General Counsel's approval.
(h) To any federal agency, organization, or person for the purposes of performing audit or oversight operations related to the operation of this system of records as authorized by law, but only information necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
(i) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) FMCS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records, (2) FMCS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, FMCS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with FMCS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(j) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when FMCS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(k) To disclose to the Office of Government Ethics in response to an ethics program audit, questionnaire, survey, or any other compliance inquiry directed to FMCS.
(l) To disclose information to any source when necessary to obtain information relevant to a conflict-of-interest investigation or determination.
These records are maintained in paper and electronic form in locations only accessible to authorized personnel.
These records are retrieved by the name or other programmatic identifier assigned to an individual.
In accordance with the NARA's General Records Schedule (GRS) 2.8 Employee Ethics Records, these records are retained for six years after filing, except when filed by or with respect to a nominee and the nominee ceases to be under consideration for the position. If any records are needed in an ongoing investigation, they will be retained for the duration of the investigation. Records are destroyed by shredding or deleting.
Records are located in a locked file storage area or stored electronically in locations requiring agency network access via username and password. FMCS buildings are guarded and monitored by security personnel, cameras, ID checks, and other physical security measures.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Individuals must provide the following information for their records to be located and identified: (1) Full name, (2) Address, and (3) A reasonably identifying description of the record content requested. See 29 CFR 1410.3, Individual access requests.
Records are updated on a periodic basis; most record corrections can be handled through established administrative procedures. Contact the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for contesting records under the provisions of the Privacy Act. See 29 CFR 1410.6, Requests for correction or amendment of records, on how to contest the content of any records.
See 29 CFR 1410.3(a), Individual access requests.
None.
This amended SORN deletes and supersedes the SORN published on the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).
Notice of payment method for FMCS services and/or products.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), is issuing this notice to inform the public that it is modifying its commercial receivables process to require payment through
This change to the payment process is effective August 26, 2022.
Will Shields, 202-606-3635,
FMCS is an independent federal agency tasked by Congress to provide mediation, conciliation, and voluntary arbitration services in the private and federal sectors. In service of its mission, non-federal sources reimburse FMCS for certain expenses including, but not limited to, processing FOIA requests under 29 CFR 1401; requests for arbitrator panels, under 29 CFR 1404; and labor relations training. Commercial receivables are typically paid in the form of physical checks sent to the agency and processed by Treasury's Administrative Resource Center (ARC), which charges FMCS a processing fee per transaction.
In 2023, FMCS expects to receive more than 6,000 commercial receivables. The costs associated with processing commercial receivables has necessitated FMCS to move to
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 September 12, 2022.
1.
1.
Additionally, Randall Lee Ferguson, individually, and Ferguson 2013 Family Trust fbo Randall Lee Ferguson, Randall Lee Ferguson, as trustee, Pearland, Texas, to join the Ferguson Family Control Group, and to acquire voting shares of Coastal Bancshares, Inc, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Pearland Bank and Alvin Bank.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing Reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
• The annual FR Y-14A collects quantitative projections of balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios.
• The quarterly FR Y-14Q collects granular data on various asset classes, including loans, securities, trading assets, and pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) for the reporting period.
• The monthly FR Y-14M is comprised of three retail portfolio- and loan-level schedules, and one detailed address-matching schedule to supplement two of the portfolio- and loan-level schedules.
The data collected through the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports (FR Y-14 reports) provide the Board with the information needed to help ensure that large firms have strong, firm‐wide risk measurement and management processes supporting their internal assessments of capital adequacy and that their capital resources are sufficient, given their business focus, activities, and resulting risk exposures. The data within the reports are used to set firms' stress capital buffer requirements. The data are also used to support other Board supervisory efforts aimed at enhancing the continued viability of large firms, including continuous monitoring of firms' planning and management of liquidity and funding resources, as well as regular assessments of credit risk, market risk, and operational risk, and associated risk management practices. Information gathered in this data collection is also used in the supervision and regulation of respondent financial institutions. Respondent firms are currently required to complete and submit up to 17 filings each year: one annual FR Y-14A filing, four quarterly FR Y-14Q filings, and 12 monthly FR Y-14M filings. Compliance with the information collection is mandatory.
The Board proposed to implement revisions to the FR Y-14Q and FR Y-14M effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date, and revisions to the FR Y-14A effective for the December 31, 2022, as of date. To allow firms time to adequately implement, test, and confirm that they comply with the new reporting requirements, one commenter asked that all FR Y-14Q/M revisions be delayed from the proposed implementation date of September 30, 2022, until June 30, 2023 (or later), and another commenter requested implementation of these revisions be postponed until the September 30, 2023, as of date.
The Board is cognizant of firm burden as it relates to regulatory reporting. Some of the proposed changes are critical for the supervisory stress test and so need to be implemented in time for use in the 2023 supervisory stress test. Unless otherwise specified, the Board has adopted revisions as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date for the FR Y-14Q and FR Y-14M and effective for the December 31, 2022, as of date for the FR Y-14A. However, to reduce firm burden, the Board has delayed some of the revisions to FR Y-14Q, Schedule H (Wholesale) and all the revisions to FR Y-14Q, Schedule L (Counterparty) until the June 30, 2023, as of date.
On FR Y-14Q, Schedule L.5 (Derivatives and Securities Financing Transactions (SFT) Profile), firms are required to rank their top 25 counterparties by certain counterparty methodologies (methodology #1). The Board proposed to also require firms to rank their top 25 counterparties based purely on exposures to client-cleared derivatives (methodology #2), and to exclude such exposures from methodology #1. Additionally, the Board proposed adding language to the Schedule L.5 instructions requiring firms to incorporate all relevant client-cleared derivative exposures for all items in Schedule L.5, once the top 25 counterparties from methodology #1 have been identified.
One commenter did not support these proposed revisions for two reasons. First, the commenter noted that the Board already receives granular information on client-cleared derivatives throughout Schedule L.5 and stated that it would be burdensome for firms to provide the granular data on client-cleared derivatives necessary to rank them.
Second, the commenter asserted that exposures to client-cleared derivatives are currently excluded from FR Y-14A, Schedule A.5 (Counterparty Credit Risk), item 3 (Counterparty Default Losses) and 3.a (Impact of Counterparty Default Hedges). Therefore, as proposed, firms would be required to maintain dual processes for providing counterparty exposures on the FR Y-14A and FR Y-14Q reports. The commenter asserted that these dual processes, combined with the difficulties in maintaining two ranking methodologies described above, would be burdensome to firms, and that, since client-cleared derivatives are not included in the calculation of stressed losses, it is unclear what benefit this information would provide to justify the additional firm burden.
In response, the Board notes that, while granular information on client-cleared derivatives are reportable in Schedule L.5, the top-25 ranking produces valuable insights that allow the Board to more effectively monitor exposures to client-cleared derivatives and provides better information regarding the materiality of these exposures.
Further, while it is true that the exposure to client cleared derivatives is excluded from the FR Y-14A, firms are already required to report in FR Y-14Q, Schedule L.5, a wide range of information (both qualitative and quantitative) that goes beyond direct inputs used for estimating the largest counterparty default losses that are reported in FR Y-14A, Schedule A.5, items 3 and 3.a.
Additionally, the commenter recommended that, if the Board did adopt these proposed changes, the Board should provide information as to (1) if a counterparty is of sufficient size to be captured in both rankings (methodologies #1 and #2), are firms required to report this counterparty twice or only once under methodology #1, and (2) under methodology #2, whether aggregate columns, such as “Total Net Current Exposure (CE),” should only include client-cleared derivative exposure to the parent entity under the ranking methodology or should instead be inclusive of both
The Board has adopted the revision as proposed with two exceptions. First, the Board has clarified in the instructions the reporting between methodology #1 and methodology #2. Notably, the Board clarified that firms are not required to report the same counterparty in both methodologies (
The Board proposed to revise the definitions of “Unstressed Mark-to-Market Received SFTs” and “Stressed Mark-to-Market Received SFTs” on FR Y-14Q, Schedule L (Counterparty) to specify that in cases where close-out netting is not enforceable, firms must report zero. Three commenters pointed out that this guidance conflicts with two existing FR Y-14 Q&As (Y140001386 and Y140001492). Per one commenter, the guidance in Q&A Y140001386 appears to require firms to remove any consideration of the “received” leg of the transaction, whereas the guidance in Q&A Y140001492 would allow for consideration of the net exposure of an individual SFT but restrict netting across multiple transactions where no master netting agreement is in place. The commenter notes that their understanding of the reporting on Schedule L should align with the guidance provided in Q&A Y140001492, as that interpretation better captures the economics of a transaction, and would prefer the instructions be revised to agree with that interpretation. In addition, per the commenter, these proposed revisions may be interpreted to further restrict the offsetting of the posted and received legs in determining net current exposure of an individual transaction.
The Board agrees that the guidance provided in Q&A Y140001492 better captures the economics of a transaction, and so has modified the instructions so that firms are required to report “Unstressed Mark-to-Market Received SFTs” and “Stressed Mark-to-Market Received SFTs” in a manner that aggregates the received amount across an unenforceable agreement for each transaction that has a net positive mark-to-market value, effective for the June 30, 2023, as of date.
The general instructions for Schedule L state that “for regular/unstressed submissions, counterparty exposures on sub-schedules L.1-L.4 should be limited to transactions for which the firm computes credit valuation adjustment (CVA) for its public financial statement reporting under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or applicable standard.” In the “Net Current Exposure (Net CE)” item of Schedule L.1, the Board proposed to add language clarifying that this item should be reported for both derivatives and fair-value SFTs. One commenter noted that firms do not compute CVA for SFTs in public financial statement reporting, and so asked that the Board specify whether SFTs should be included in the “Net Current Exposure (Net CE)” item of Schedule L.1.
In response, the Board has clarified in the instructions that in the unstressed submission, firms are required to include fair-valued SFTs in Net CE reporting, to the extent that the firm computes CVA for them for the public financial statement reporting under U.S. GAAP or applicable standard. In contrast, fair-valued SFTs are expected to be included in Stressed Net CE reporting regardless of whether the firm computes CVA, given the general instructions of Schedule L that states that “the scope of counterparty exposures on sub-schedules L.1-L.4 in CCAR/stressed submission is expected to be larger and incorporates transactions that would not typically require CVA for public financial statement reporting under GAAP or applicable standard but which may pose a gap risk to the firm, requiring CVA, should the post-stress value of collateral be insufficient to cover post-stress derivatives exposure.” The Board has adopted this revision effective for the June 30, 2023, as of date.
The Board proposed to clarify that firms must include SFT exposures when they act as agents on behalf of clients for which a credit guarantee has been provided against the borrowers' defaults in Schedule L.5. One commenter noted that the proposal did not address how to report guarantees provided in sponsored repurchase programs in which a firm, as a sponsoring member, guarantees the performance of the clients to a central counterparty clearing house (CCP). The commenter recommended the Board clarify how these guarantees should be reported.
The Board confirms that the guarantees associated with sponsored repurchase programs in which the firm, as a sponsoring member, guarantees the client's performance to CCPs should be reported in Schedule L.5. However, the Board has not revised the instructions, as the instructions already state that the firm should report its exposure arising from the credit guarantee it provides against the borrower's default. The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, except that it has delayed implementation until the June 30, 2023, as of date.
The Board proposed to clarify that if a consolidated or parent counterparty is selected as a counterparty comprising 95% of a firm's CVA, then a firm's exposures to all the counterparties and legal entities associated with the consolidated or parent counterparty must be included and reported in Schedule L.1 (Derivatives profile by counterparty and aggregate across all counterparties), rather than including only counterparties and legal entities with which the firm has a CVA. One commenter pointed out that this proposed revision would contradict the response to FR Y-14 Q&A Y140001356, which states that firms are not required to include the active agreements that do not have actual trades on the reporting as of date. The commenter recommended that the Board instead clarify the instructions to be consistent with the interpretation in Q&A Y140001356.
The Board notes that the proposed revision is consistent with the response to Q&A Y140001356. Q&A Y140001356 covers a related case in which a firm has active agreements that do not have actual trades on the reporting date. The proposed revision related to a different case in which a firm has actual trades on the reporting date but does not compute CVA on them. In this case, while CVA is zero, not all counterparty data is expected to be zero or null (such as notional, gross CE, etc.). Under the proposed revisions, a firm would have been required to report these exposures to all the counterparties/legal entities associated with the consolidated/parent counterparty reportable in Schedule L.1, regardless of their CVA values. The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, but has delayed implementation until the June 30, 2023, as of date.
The Board proposed to clarify that in the “Non-Cash Collateral Type” item of Schedule L.5.1 (Derivative and SFT information by counterparty legal entity and netting set/agreement), firms must include all non-cash collateral or initial margin that was posted or received in actuality, as opposed to only non-cash collateral allowed under a given agreement. One commenter recommended the Board specify that
Given the structure of applicable transactions, the Board agrees with the commenter and has clarified the instructions so that firms should not report the “Non-Cash Collateral Type” field in Schedule L.5.1 in cases where there is no legal agreement in place, or the agreement is not legally enforceable. The Board has adopted this revision effective for the June 30, 2023, as of date.
The Board proposed to require firms to report counterparty attribute information (
Second, in the “Consolidated/Parent Counterparty Industry Code” item, firms are required to report a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code if one is available. The commenter requested clarification on whether the primary business activity of the parent should be determined by looking at the contributions of revenue across subsidiaries or whether parent entities should be aligned to holding company NAICS codes.
The Board proposed to capture attribute information at the consolidated parent level, as it would have enabled the Board to better identify exposures to the same organizational structure (
The Board did not propose any revisions to the “Agreement Role” item on Schedule L.5.1. In this item, firms are required to report “NA” when the transactions do not relate to centrally cleared or exchange traded derivatives, when the reported counterparty is a CCP, or when the firm is a clearing member of a CCP or an exchange and the exchange does not guarantee the client's performance to the CCP or exchange. One commenter suggested that for back-to-back derivatives (
The Board proposed to require firms to isolate certain private equity exposures that qualify as public welfare investments in FR Y-14Q, Schedule F.24 (Private Equity). One commenter asked the Board to clarify whether the new items added for public welfare investments are intended to capture affordable housing investments not eligible for tax credits. The commenter also asked the Board to confirm that such tax oriented public welfare investments should instead be reported in Schedule F.25 (Other Fair Value Assets) if fair-value option (FVO) has been elected for the investment.
The Board confirms that the new items added to Schedule F.24 for public welfare investments were not intended to capture public welfare investments eligible for tax credits, and that such tax oriented public welfare investments should instead be reported in Schedule F.25 if held at fair value, including if FVO has been elected for the investment. The Board has adjusted the proposed revisions to the Schedule F.24 instructions to clarify both of these matters and has otherwise adopted the revisions as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to better delineate the exposures that should be included in the “FVO Hedges” and “[Accrual Loan] AL Hedges” versions of Schedule F (Trading). One commenter was supportive of these changes, though questioned whether firms needed to provide all of the sub-schedules of Schedule F for these versions. Specifically, the commenter suggested that Schedule F.22 (IDR-Corporate Credit) and F.23 (IDR-Jump to Default) be left blank for the “FVO Hedges” and “AL Hedges” versions. The commenter's rationale is twofold. First, the data submitted on these schedules either does not affect the macro scenario projections or are not used by firms to determine macroeconomic scenario projections, and so the data are only informational or are only used in the calculation of trading incremental default losses (
The Board agrees with the commenter's rationales and has revised the instructions to indicate that Schedules F.22 and F.23 are not required for the FVO Hedges and AL Hedges submissions, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board did not propose any changes to the treatment of non-fair value private equity investment exposures for determining stressed losses. However, one commenter recommended that the Board subject these exposures to the macro scenario, and not to the global market shock scenario. The Board indicated in a final FR Y-14 notice from 2020
The Board is still reviewing the scenario treatment of non-fair value private equity exposures and will consider revising this treatment in a future
The Board proposed to revise the definition of informal advised or guidance lines on FR Y-14Q, Schedule
The clarification of the definition of informal advised or guidance lines was intended to bring Schedule H.1 more clearly into alignment with the FR Y-9C. However, the Board acknowledges the concerns raised by the commenter. To avoid confusion and clarify the relationship to the FR Y-9C, the Board has not adopted the proposed revisions to the definition of informal advised or guidance lines. Further, to ensure alignment with the FR Y-9C, the Board has removed the language surrounding the exclusions of informal advised or guidance lines. The aforementioned reference to FR Y-9C, Schedule L will remain in the instructions without any exclusions, which should mitigate ambiguity. Given the comments surrounding firm burden, the Board has delayed implementation of this revision until the June 30, 2023, as of date.
The Board proposed to add “Minimum Probability of Default,” “Maximum Probability of Default,” and “[Probability of Default] PD Calculation Method” items to FR Y-14Q, Schedule H.4 (Internal Risk Rating). Per the proposal, these items would enable the Board to better assess credit risk across firms by providing benchmark values for internal ratings. Two commenters raised several issues with this proposal. First, firms may segment their portfolios and assign certain PDs to internal ratings within each segment. This could lead to a wide range of PDs for firms' internal risk ratings and possibly overlapping minimum and maximum PDs across different ratings. Such overlap would not allow the Board to easily compare credit risk across firms, and so may not be appropriate for use in supervisory models. In addition, some firms may assign a single PD to a given internal rating, and so the data provided may not be very useful to accomplish the intended goal of the proposed changes. Given the diversity in practice across firms, one commenter requested that the Board acknowledge that these items would not be used by supervisory models to determine stressed losses, and another commenter recommended that the Board not adopt these proposed changes.
Second, firms are already required to report PD information at the facility level in FR Y-14Q, Schedules H.1 and H.2 (Commercial Real Estate). The commenters noted that this facility-level data provides more insight than minimum and maximum PD. The commenter added that while firms could provide the minimum and maximum PD for their internal ratings, the firm may not hold any exposures that have PDs equivalent to the minimum or maximum PD for a given internal rating. By contrast, PD data already required on Schedules H.1 and H.2 allow the Board to see the exact PDs of reported exposures. Per the commenters, the fact that firms may not have any exposures at the minimum and maximum PD for a given internal rating and the fact that firms already reported facility-level PD information mean that the additional burden of reporting the minimum and maximum PD for a given internal rating is not justified.
Third, one commenter asserted that there may be a future proposal to the capital rule to eliminate the existing internal ratings-based approach. If this occurs, it would no longer be appropriate to require the reporting of these items, per the commenter. Given the possibility of this occurring, the commenter suggests firms should not be required to provide these items due to the burden of creating a process that may be obviated in the near future.
Commenters also requested information regarding how this data will be used, how firms should report if certain ratings do not have associated PD ranges, and how firms should report situations where a PD is assigned to an internal rating but there are no exposures with that PD reportable in Schedules H.1 or H.2 (
The Board notes that the “Minimum PD” and “Maximum PD” items are intended to give additional context with regard to understanding a firms' internal ratings. Current reporting on Schedule H (Wholesale) without these items has resulted in inconsistent ratings detail across firms, and the addition of these items will produce useful data points for interpreting the ratings. The reporting of these items creates an opportunity for firms to provide a more robust view of their internal ratings to help the Board better assess credit risk. Additionally, the free text field will remain available for firms to provide further explanation if necessary.
In addition, reporting the calculation method at the level of the internal rating will provide the Board with additional detail in assessing the PDs reported, with a lower burden than requiring this data at a facility level. It may be the case that a firm does not hold any exposures at the minimum and maximum PDs reported for each internal rating; however, the PD information is still crucial in allowing the Board to better interpret internal ratings. Further, the Board has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule to revise the capital rule to eliminate the existing internal ratings-based approach.
Lastly, to reduce burden and to be responsive to commenters, the Board has revised the instructions to allow for the reporting of “NA” for internal ratings that do not have exposures in a reporting quarter, to expand the character limit for these items to allow firms to report up to seven decimal places, and to add a hybrid calculation option to the “Calculation Method”
Planned capital actions are the capital actions firms would expect to take under baseline conditions, and alternative capital actions are the capital actions firms would expect to take under stressed conditions. The Board proposed to change the capital action assumptions of the FR Y-14A, Schedule A (Summary) CCAR submission under the supervisory severely adverse scenario from planned capital actions to alternative capital actions. In addition, the Board proposed to add the definitions and assumptions of capital actions required per the capital plan rule, as set forth in CCAR Q&A GEN0500, to the instructions for FR Y-14A, Schedule A. One commenter was supportive of the change in the capital action assumptions for the CCAR submission under the supervisory severely adverse scenario. However, the commenter pointed out that the proposal seemed to apply two of the assumptions to alternative capital actions that were intended only to apply to planned capital actions in the severely adverse scenario. These assumptions were: (1) that the dollar value of dividends, repurchases, and redemptions of capital instructions do not vary from the amount in the Internal baseline scenario, and (2) that the dollar value of the issuance of capital instruments does not vary by scenario from the amount in the Internal baseline scenario unless the scenario directly impacts shareholder's equity or consideration paid in connection with a planned merger or acquisition.
The Board confirms that these two assumptions would not apply to alternative capital actions and are no longer necessary to include in the instructions because planned capital actions will only be used in the baseline scenario. The Board has removed these two assumptions from the instructions and has adopted this revision effective for the December 31, 2022, as of date. In addition, the Board has rescinded CCAR Q&A GEN0500 because it refers to the prior instructions, which required firms to use planned capital actions in the supervisory severely adverse scenario, and would therefore cause confusion.
The Board proposed to add an “Interest expense for the quarter (net of swaps)” item to FR Y-14Q, Schedule C (Regulatory Capital Instruments). One commenter asked for clarification for whether firms should report quarter-to-date profit and loss (P&L) movement of the interest expense on the subordinated debt instrument only, as opposed to total interest expense.
The Board confirms that the commenter's interpretation is correct in that firms should report quarterly P&L for the specific subordinated debt instrument net of P&L attributable to swaps. The Board has revised the instructions to clarify this reporting and has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add an “Interest expense for the quarter (with swaps, excluding any gains or losses due to the fair value adjustment of ASC 815/FAS 133 hedges)” item to Schedule C. One commenter asked the Board to confirm that firms would need to report quarter-to-date interest profit and loss movement on debt plus swap interest (
The Board confirms that the commenter's interpretation is correct in that firms should report the quarterly P&L for the specific subordinated debt instrument including any underwriting fees and income/expense due to swaps but excluding the gains/losses due to any fair value adjustments over the quarter. With respect to realized cash flow, firms should only report cash flow from swaps to the extent that they are included in interest expense on subordinated debt. The Board has revised the instructions to clarify this reporting and has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add an “Interest expense for the quarter (with swaps, this number should reconcile to the quarterly number reported in FR Y-9C BHCK4397 for all subordinated debt instruments)” item to Schedule C. One commenter asked for clarification for whether firms should report quarter-to-date movement on interest plus the Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) 133 fair value adjustment for both debt and swaps in this item.
The “Interest expense for the quarter (with swaps, this number should reconcile to the quarterly number reported in FR Y-9C BHCK4397 for all subordinated debt instruments)” item is meant to capture the entirety of interest expense on the subordinated debt instrument, inclusive of swaps and fair value adjustments. The sum of this item across all subordinated debt securities should reconcile to the interest expense on subordinated debt that is reported on the FR Y-9C. The Board has revised the instructions to clarify this reporting and has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add a “Fair value adjustment at the quarter end for subordinated debt securities that are carried at fair value” item to Schedule C. One commenter asked how this proposed item would interact with the existing “Fair value of associated swaps ($Millions)” item also on Schedule C. Specifically, the commenter wanted clarification on whether the proposed item is meant to capture all fair value adjustments on long term debt that have a fair value hedge relationship while the existing item is meant to capture only the fair value of outstanding swaps. Additionally, the commenter also sought clarification on whether the proposed item is asking for the FAS 133 basis adjustment (if not, then firms would report a zero value, as a subordinated debt portfolio is not reported at fair value), and whether the existing item should include accrued interest.
The proposed “Fair value adjustments at the quarter end for subordinated debt securities carried at fair value” item was meant to capture the quarterly fair value adjustment made to the security that flows through a firm's income statement as interest expense on subordinated debt. The existing item “Fair value of associated swaps ($ Millions)” captures the total fair value of outstanding swaps on this security, and not the quarterly movements (
The Board proposed to clarify that “Modification Type” (FR Y-14M, Schedule A (Domestic First Lien), item 74; Schedule B (Domestic Home Equity), item 77) should only be completed if firms report “1” in “Workout Type Completed” (Schedule A, item 77; Schedule B, item 61), indicating that a loan has been modified. The instructions for “Workout Type Completed” specify that firms must report “1” in the month that the modification is complete and the new loan terms are in effect. One commenter asked the Board to clarify whether “Modification Type” should only be completed in the month that
The Board notes that “Workout Type Completed” should only be reported in the month the workout was completed. Per the instructions, “Modification Type” should be filled out for all months the loan is currently operating under modified terms (including the month that “Workout Type Completed” = 1). The Board has revised the instructions for “Modification Type” to clarify how to report this item and has adopted the revision, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
One commenter pointed out that “Modification Type” requires firms to report “0” if a loan has not been modified, but this is inconsistent with the proposed changes requiring firms to only report this item if a loan has been modified, as indicated in “Workout Type Completed.” The commenter asked for clarification for how to report this item for loans that have not been modified.
The Board notes that if a loan is not operating under modified terms, then “Modification Type” should be populated as “0 = Loan has not been modified.” If “Workout Type Completed” = 1 (Modification), then “Modification Type” should be coded with an allowable value other than “0.” The Board has updated the instructions to clarify this point and has adopted the revision, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed several revisions to the “Modification Type” item to allow for multiple types of modifications to a loan, such as modifications caused by the COVID event. One commenter sought clarification from the Board on how COVID-related deferral or forbearance plans should be reported in “Modification Type.” Per an April 2020, interagency statement,
In response, the Board notes that it proposed to add “Workout Type Started” to Schedule A (item 143) and Schedule B (item 120) of the FR Y-14M. All forbearances should be reported under “Workout Type Started” and “Workout Type Completed,” regardless of the cause of the forbearance. If any modification to the terms of the loan occurs as a result, then it should be reported in “Modification Type.” The Board has adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
One commenter asked how non-loss mitigation-related modification plans (non-default) (
The Board has clarified that if the loan is active under loss mitigation, then “Modification Type” should reflect the type of accommodation the loan is undergoing (per Q&A Y140001307, SCRA plans should be considered as active loss mitigation).
One commenter asked how firms should report “Modification Type” in cases where the type of modification is unknown. Per the commenter, a loan that was modified under a Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) may have offered the borrower a variety of types of modification, and this level of detail is not available in certain loan systems, particularly for loans that were modified prior to 2013.
The Board acknowledges that there may be cases where loan modification information is unknown. Firms must report the value that reflects the current modification arrangement using all information available. To address this comment, the Board has added option “99=Other” to “Modification Type.” Firms should report “99=Other” if no information regarding the modification is available. The Board has also updated “Modification Type” to remove reference to any specific program (such as HAMP). The Board has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add an option to “Modification Type” for firms to report when the loan modification results in recapitalization. One commenter asked the Board to provide a definition for the “Recapitalization” option.
The Board has added a definition for “Recapitalization” to “Modification Type” to capture instances where accrued and/or deferred principal, interest, servicing advances, expenses, fees, etc. are capitalized into the unpaid principal balance of the modified loan. The Board has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to retire several options in the “Modification Type” and “Workout Type Completed” items, considering the proposed addition of other items. One commenter asked how historical reporting would be updated or aligned to the new values.
The Board notes that historical reporting will remain unchanged from the current practice, which requires firms to report items and values based on the forms and instructions for a given as of date. The Board has adopted these revisions as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add several reportable values to “Modification Type” on Schedule B, one of which was “99 = Other”. However, this item already had the “26 = Other” option. One commenter asked what the difference was between the options of “26 = Other” and “99 = Other” for “Modification Type” on Schedule B.
The Board did not intend to have two values indicating the same modification type, and so has removed “26=Other” from “Modification Type” on Schedule B, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to retire the “9 = Proprietary Other” option of “Modification Type” on Schedules A and B. FR Y-14 Q&A Y140000738 previously specified that firms should report home equity modifications that do not meet the definition of modification, as defined in the FR Y-14M instructions, as “9 = Proprietary Other” in “Modification Type.” One commenter asked how firms should report such loans once the “9 = Proprietary Other” option has been retired.
Firms should report the code that reflects the current modification arrangement using all information available. If no information regarding the modification type is available, then firms should report as “99=Other.” The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
One commenter asked whether the Board proposed to retire the “13 = HELOC Line Renewal (Regular)” and “14 = HELOC Line Renewal (loss mitigation strategy)” options from “Modification Type” on Schedule B. The instructions for these values have been stricken out, but the options themselves were not.
The Board did not intend to strike out the instructions for these values and has updated the instructions accordingly. These values were not removed from “Modification Type” on Schedule B,
The Board proposed to add an option to “Workout Type Completed” for firms to report “17=Partial Claim/Junior Lien” on Schedules A and B. The proposed instructions for “Workout Type Completed” would have required firms to report “17=Partial Claim/Junior Lien” in the month that a loan partial claim or the origination of a junior lien resulting from loss mitigation was completed. One commenter noted that some modifications, such as Federal Housing Authority (FHA)-HAMP Combination Loan Modifications and Partial Claims, may result in a partial claim. These modifications establish an affordable monthly payment, resolve the outstanding mortgage payment arrearages, and permanently modify the first mortgage monthly payment. The commenter added that these modifications are zero-interest subordinate liens that will include a portion of the amount to be resolved and if borrowers meet the requirements, a principal deferment. The remainder is added to the principal loan balance of the first mortgage and extends the term for 30 years at a fixed interest rate. The commenter would like the Board to clarify how to report these types of modifications in the “Workout Type Completed” items.
If a workout program results in a partial claim or junior lien, then “Workout Type Completed” should be coded as “17=Partial Claim/Junior Lien.” If the workout program results in a change to terms of the loan, then “Workout Type Completed” should be reported as “1—Modification” and “Modification Type” should be reported using the code that best reflects the modification. The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add a “Workout Type Started” item to Schedule A. Firms would be required to report this item for any loan where a loss mitigation effort has started or is in progress for the current month. One commenter asked how firms should report situations where a modification plan that was reported in a prior period fails and in the current reporting period, a new plan starts.
In cases where loss mitigation efforts fail, firms should report “Workout Type Completed” as “0=No workout completed or unsuccessful resolution of loss mitigation effort.” If in the current month a new effort begins, firms should report “Workout Type Started” with the relevant allowable value. The Board has revised the instructions to clarify this reporting, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
One commenter asked how firms should report situations where they offer a borrower a trial period for a modified loan that could subsequently result in a loan modification. In these cases, the commenter sought clarification as to whether firms should report the date that the trial period began or when the modification program began.
Firms should report “Workout Type Started” with the appropriate value in the month(s) the trial started and throughout the trial period for loans that enter a trial period for a modification. The Board has adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add new options for the “Workout Type Completed” item on Schedule B. However, the Board did not provide proposed definitions for these new options. One commenter asked the Board to provide these definitions.
The Board has updated the instructions to provide definitions for all new values in “Workout Type Completed” on Schedule B that align with the definitions for the “Workout Type Completed” item on Schedule A. The Board has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to revise the language in the instructions for FR Y-14M, Schedule A, items 87 (“Principal Deferred Amount”) and 89 (“Principal Write-Down Amount”) to expand the circumstances under which firms would report these items, as currently these items are only reported if a loan has been modified. One commenter pointed out that the Board did not propose to revise the equivalent items on Schedule B (items 59 and 73, respectively), even though these items are also only reported if a loan has been modified. The commenter suggested that the Board also make these revisions to the corresponding Schedule B items, for consistency.
The Board agrees that the corresponding items on Schedule B should have been updated and has revised the instructions to align the applicable items on Schedule B with those on Schedule A. The Board has adopted these revisions effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to require firms to provide the loan-level fair value of loans reported on FR Y-14M, Schedule A, if those loans are measured under the FVO or are held-for-sale (HFS). Currently, firms are required to indicate whether a loan is measured at fair value under the FVO or is HFS but are not required to provide the fair value of a given loan. One commenter raised two objections to this proposal. First, many firms do not have the fair value of FVO or HFS loans readily available. Rather, per the commenter, fair value adjustments on FVO or HFS loans are recorded and accounted for as a block and are not individually broken out. The commenter added that requiring firms to provide loan-level fair values would be burdensome on firms and would require significant manual effort as the data is not readily available.
Second, firms are already required to report aggregated fair value FVO and HFS amounts for retail loans on FR Y-14Q, Schedule J (Retail FVO/HFS). In the commenter's view, since the Board currently collects similar information at the portfolio level, firms should not be required to report fair value amounts at the loan level.
Collecting loan-level fair value information for mortgages allows the Board to better monitor and assess risks surrounding FVO mortgages, which is limited when using the aggregated FR Y-14Q data. Receiving timely information regarding the fair value of mortgages is essential since these assets are highly sensitive to current market conditions, which can change rapidly. Therefore, mortgages held at fair value have different risk profile than those held at amortized cost. Given this, it is imperative that the Board receives loan-level fair value data for these exposures. The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to remove items 57 (“Capitalization”) and 98 (“Interest Rate Reduced”) from FR Y-14M, Schedule A, as they are no longer needed. One commenter suggested that, for consistency, the Board should also remove the equivalent items (items 57 and 71, respectively) from Schedule B.
The Board agrees that the equivalent items on Schedule B should also be removed, as they are no longer needed given other adopted revisions. The Board has updated the instructions to remove these items from Schedule B. The Board has adopted these revisions effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add “Actual Payment Amount” (item 142) to Schedule A. In this item, firms would have reported the actual dollar amount of the interest payment received in the reporting month, excluding fee payments. One commenter questioned
To reduce ambiguity, the Board has modified the proposed instructions to indicate that firms should report the total payment received in a given month, including principal curtailment received with the payment.
One commenter asked whether principal and interest reversals should be factored into “Actual Payment Amount,” or if it should only capture received amounts.
For clarity, the Board has modified the proposed instructions to indicate that firms should report the total payment received in a given month, net of any reversals. The Board has adopted the proposal to add the “Actual Payment Amount” item to Schedule A, with these modifications, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
The Board proposed to add options for the Bloomberg Short-Term Bank Yield (BSBY) to the “[Adjustable Rate Mortgage] ARM Index” item on Schedules A (item 32) and B (item 29). There were no comments on the proposed changes; however, one commenter did have two questions about this item. First, the commenter noted that the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco announced earlier this year that it will stop publishing all Cost of Fund Indices (COFI). The “ARM Index” item currently contains options for firms to report COFI. The commenter further noted that loans that reference COFI have been updated to reference other indices and sought clarification as to whether firms should continue to report COFI, which was the reference index at origination, or the updated indices. Second, the commenter also pointed out that the “ARM Index” item requires firms to report origination values. The commenter recommended that this be changed so that firms report the current index values, as it would provide more useful information to the Board and be less burdensome on firms, as the current index information is readily available.
The Board notes that COFI has not been retired and firms can continue to report COFI in “ARM Index.” Firms should continue to report legacy loans that reference COFI using the COFI options in “ARM Index.” In addition, origination values allow the Board to adequately assess underwriting decisions at the time of origination, which can inform changes in credit availability over time. The Board acknowledges that receiving current value information would also be beneficial and will consider this suggestion for a future proposal. The Board has adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
In general, bank cards allow firms to pay outstanding balances over time, while charge cards must be fully paid off each billing cycle. Some products have features of both bank and charge cards, in that only a portion of the outstanding balance can be rolled over to the next billing cycle. The Board proposed to revise the definition of “Charge cards” (item 3.b) on FR Y-14Q, Schedule M.1 (Quarter-end balances) to specify that if a charge card loan has a pay-over-time feature, then the entire balance must be reported in this item. One commenter said that this revision would cause misalignment between Schedule M and item 6.a. (Credit cards) of FR Y-9C, Schedule C (Loans and Leases), and asked whether this misalignment was intentional.
The definition of item 3.b on FR Y-14Q, Schedule M requires firms to report the applicable balance that is also reported in FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C, items 6.a and 6.d (Other consumer loans). Therefore, the Schedule M.1 and FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C instructions would align, and the Board has adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
Several items on FR Y-14Q, Schedule M.1, reference various FR Y-9C items where applicable balances are reported. The Board proposed to add a reference to FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C, item 9.a (Loans to nondepository financial institutions) to Schedule M.1, item 2.c (SME cards and corporate cards), as balances required in item 2.c could be reported in item 9.a. One commenter requested that the Board also add references to FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C, items 2.a (Loans to U.S. banks and other U.S. depository institutions), 2.b (Loans to foreign banks), 3 (Loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers), and 7 (Loans to foreign governments and official institutions) to Schedule M.1, item 2.c, as balances reported in those FR Y-9C items could also meet the definition listed for item 2.c. Relatedly, the commenter noted that for congruency, any FR Y-9C items added to be referenced to Schedule M.1, item 2.c, should also be added to Schedule M.2 (FR Y-9C Reconciliation), item 2 (SME cards and corporate cards).
The Board agrees with the commenter that there could be loans reported in other FR Y-9C items that meet the definition for reporting in Schedule M.1, item 2.c. Given this, the Board has revised the instructions for item 2.c to add references to FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C, items 2.a, 2.b, 3, and 7. In response to the comment and for data reconciliation purposes, the Board has also added applicable items to Schedule M.2, item 2. The Board has adopted these revisions effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 22, 2022.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FTC requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend for three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR or Rule). That clearance expires on September 30, 2022.
Comments must be received by September 26, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Benjamin R. Davidson, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-3055, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580.
•
•
•
On April 19, 2022, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 87 FR 23177. The FTC received no germane comments during the public comment period. Pursuant to OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the FTC's portion of the information collection requirements contained in the rules implementing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR Rules”) and corresponding Notification and Report Form for Certain Mergers and Acquisitions (“Notification and Report Form”). The current clearance expires on January 31, 2023.
Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2022.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Robert L. Jones, Assistant Director, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-5301, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, or by telephone to (202) 326-2740.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the HSR Rules and corresponding Notification and Report Form.
The following burden estimates are primarily based on FTC data concerning the number of HSR filings and FTC staff's informal consultations with leading HSR counsel for outside parties.
In fiscal year 2022, FTC staff estimates that the FTC will receive a total of 6,580 non-index filings.
On rare occasions, a transaction for which the HSR filing is automatically withdrawn during the merger review process (due to the parties' Securities and Exchange Commission filing indicating that the transaction has been terminated) could be subsequently restarted. Based on experience to date, this would occur approximately once every fifteen years,
Thus, the total estimated hours burden is 264,947 hours [(7,160 non-index filings × 37 hours each) + (12 index filings × two hours each) + (one withdrawn transaction later restarted × three hours))].
Using the burden hours (264,947) estimated above and applying an estimated average of $460/hour for executive and/or attorney compensation, FTC staff estimates that the total labor cost associated with the HSR Rules and the Notification and Report Form is approximately $121,875,620.
The applicable requirements impose minimal start-up costs, as businesses subject to the HSR Rules generally have or obtain necessary equipment for other business purposes. Staff believes that the above requirements necessitate ongoing, regular training so that covered entities stay current and have a clear understanding of federal mandates, but such training would be subsumed within the ordinary training that employees receive.
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of maintaining records and providing disclosures to consumers. All comments must be received on or before October 25, 2022.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 25, 2022. Write “Paperwork Reduction Act Comment: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Due to the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Paperwork Reduction Act Comment: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,”
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 25, 2022. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Study to Explore Early Development (SEED) Follow-up Study to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on October 4, 2021 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
In 2016, an estimated one in 54 children eight years of age living in 11 communities across the United States had autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication, and behavior challenges. Total annual costs associated with ASD have been estimated between $11.5-60.9 billion (2011, US dollars), yet major gaps in knowledge remain about risk factors for ASD, and associated challenges and needs for persons with ASD and their families. Additionally, while most research on ASD has focused on children, ASD is considered a lifelong condition, and although an estimated 70,000 to 111,000 youth with ASD turn 18 years of age annually, little is known about the transition to adolescence and adulthood for persons with ASD. Despite the call to address transition and lifespan issues in the Autism CARES Acts of 2014 and 2019, only 2% of ASD funding from 2008-2018 was spent on lifespan issues. The 2016-2017 Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Strategic Plan highlighted the need for more information about the services and support needed to maximize the quality of life for people on the autism spectrum, especially as individuals with ASD progress into adulthood.
The Study to Explore Early Development (SEED) was originally initiated to address the Children's Health Act of 2000, which mandated CDC to conduct ASD surveillance and implement research programs to address the number, incidence, and causes of ASD and related developmental disabilities. SEED was a multi-phase, multi-site, case-control study comparing children with ASD, identified at ages 2-5 years, to children with other non-ASD developmental disabilities (DD), and from the general population (POP). SEED was initially implemented in three phases during 2007-2021. The current information collection request is to conduct longitudinal follow-up studies of SEED 1-3 participants at older ages, thereby addressing the priorities established in the Autism CARES Acts of 2014 and 2019, and the need for research highlighted in the IACC Strategic Plan.
Given the size of the original SEED birth cohorts and the wealth of baseline information collected, a follow-up study of participants can help us address the research gaps described above. The information collected from this study will allow us to better understand the developmental trajectory of children with ASD, their health outcomes and co-occurring conditions at older ages, and the associated early predictors of these outcomes, including intellectual abilities.
The data collected in this study also provides the opportunity to obtain important self-reported measures of well-being among young adults with ASD. Recent evidence suggests that individuals with ASD, with average to above average levels of intellectual functioning, may still struggle with
Initial follow-up surveys of SEED participants will be conducted with the parents of the children who previously participated in SEED because it is the parents who provided consent for follow-up studies. However, many emerging issues surrounding the transition to adulthood among adolescents with ASD require self rather than parental report (
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 2,089 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). This collection provides data necessary to identify problem areas, measure the progress of prevention efforts, and ultimately eliminate healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) nationwide.
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 25, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0101 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) (OMB Control No. 0920-0666, Exp. 1/31/2025)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infection Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects data from healthcare facilities in the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) under OMB Control Number 0920-0666. NHSN provides facilities, states, regions, and the nation with data necessary to identify problem areas, measure the progress of prevention efforts, and ultimately eliminate healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) nationwide. NHSN allows healthcare facilities to track blood safety errors and various healthcare-associated infection prevention practice methods such as healthcare personnel influenza vaccine status and corresponding infection control adherence rates. NHSN currently has six components: Patient Safety (PS), Healthcare Personnel Safety (HPS), Biovigilance (BV), Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF), Outpatient Procedure (OPC), Dialysis, and Neonatal Component.
Data reported under the Patient Safety Component are used to determine the magnitude of the healthcare-associated adverse events and trends in the rates of the events, in the distribution of pathogens, and in the adherence to prevention practices. Data will help detect changes in the epidemiology of adverse events resulting from new medical therapies and changing patient risks. Additionally, reported data is being used to describe the epidemiology of antimicrobial use and resistance and to better understand the relationship of antimicrobial therapy to this rising problem. Under the Healthcare Personnel Safety Component, protocols and data on events—both positive and adverse—are used to determine: (1) the magnitude of adverse events in healthcare personnel; and (2) compliance with immunization and sharps injuries safety guidelines. Under the Biovigilance Component, data on adverse reactions and incidents associated with blood transfusions are reported and analyzed to provide national estimates of adverse reactions and incidents. Under the Long-Term Care Facility Component, data is captured from skilled nursing facilities. Reporting methods under the LTCF component have been created by using forms from the PS Component as a model with modifications to specifically address the specific characteristics of LTCF residents and the unique data needs of these facilities reporting into NHSN. The Respiratory Tract Infection (RTI)Form will not to be used by NHSN users, but as part of an EIP project with four EIP sites. The Form is titled
NHSN has increasingly served as the operating system for HAI reporting compliance through legislation established by the states. As of August 2022, 37 states, the District of Columbia and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have opted to use NHSN as their primary system for mandated reporting. Reporting compliance is completed by healthcare facilities in their respective jurisdictions, with emphasis on those states and municipalities acquiring varying consequences for failure to use NHSN. Additionally, healthcare facilities in five U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) are voluntarily reporting to NHSN. Additional territories are projected to follow with similar use of NHSN for reporting purposes. NHSN's data is used to aid in the tracking of HAIs and guide infection prevention activities/practices that protect patients.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and other payers use these data to determine incentives for performance at healthcare facilities across the U.S. and surrounding territories, and members of the public may use some protected data to inform their selection among available providers. Each of these parties is dependent on the completeness and accuracy of the data. CDC and CMS work closely and are fully committed to ensuring complete and accurate reporting, which are critical for protecting patients and guiding national, state, and local prevention priorities. CMS collects some HAI data and healthcare personnel influenza vaccination summary data, which is done on a voluntary basis as part of its Fee-for-Service Medicare quality reporting programs, while others may report data required by a federal mandate. Facilities that fail to report quality measure data are subject to partial payment reduction in the applicable Medicare Fee-for-Service payment system. CMS links their
The ICR was previously approved in January of 2022 for 5,943,401 responses and 1,321,991 burden hours. The proposed changes in this new ICR include revisions to nine existing data collection forms. In this Revision, CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 1,614,345 annual burden hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Poison Center Collaborations for Public Health Emergencies. This proposed collection will allow CDC to quickly characterize potential exposures identified through the National Poison Data System (NPDS), help determine potential risk factors, identify illnesses related to the public health emergency, and improve the public health response to the incident.
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 25, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0100 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Poison Center Collaborations for Public Health Emergencies (PCCPHE) (OMB Control No. 0920-1166, Exp. 04/30/2023)—Revision—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is requesting a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Revision of the Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR) titled Poison Center Collaborations for Public Health Emergencies (PCCPHE) (OMB Control No. 0920-1166; Expiration date 04/30/2023).
CDC's key partner is America's Poison Centers
When a public health emergency of interest emerges in NPDS, the CDC and America's Poison Centers
The purpose of this Generic ICR is to create a timely mechanism to allow poison centers, supported by CDC, to follow-up with callers during select public health emergencies on exposure and health. These PCCPHE Generic information collections (GenICs) will obtain information on sources of exposure, scenario of exposure, health seeking behaviors following exposure, and awareness of health communication messaging. These additional data can help CDC identify interventions to improve health messaging meant to reduce exposure; improve disaster and emergency response; and prevent future events for the specific area or incident of interest.
Trained poison center staff will conduct the call-back telephone survey or will facilitate the call-back web survey, after administering consent. Respondents will include individuals who call poison centers about exposures related to the select public health emergencies. These respondents include adults, 18 years and older; adolescents, 15 to less than 18 years; and parents or guardians on behalf of their children less than 15 years of age.
In 2019, a PCCPHE GenIC, titled “Risk Factors for Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs),” was conducted to identify sources of and risk factors for HAB exposures. New information gained about HAB exposures were used improve HAB incident response, communication, and outreach at the state and national level.
During the past three-year approval period, no PCCPHE GenICs were conducted; however, two NPDS-related follow-up studies were implemented using the Secretary's Public Health Emergency PRA Waiver for COVID-19. During a non-pandemic situation, these two studies would have used this Generic ICR. These studies assessed unintentional exposures associated with cleaning products (
Based on CDC's past experience, the following revisions affecting public burden are proposed. CDC plans to increase the annual number of public health emergencies of interest from two to three per year. CDC will reduce the estimated time per response from 40 minutes to 10 minutes. CDC plans to add web surveys as a second secure mode of collection to the currently approved telephone surveys. CDC will also increase the annual number of
Based on these revisions, the total number of annual respondents requested is 1,500, which is an increase of 1,200 over the 300 respondents previously approved. The annual time burden requested is 250 hours, which is an increase of 50 hours over the 200 hours previously approved. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Generic Information Collection Request for Cognitive Testing and Pilot Testing for the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The Generic Clearance is needed to support methodological studies that improve information quality and the efficiency of information collection.
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 25, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0097 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7118; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Generic Information Collection Request (ICR) for Cognitive Testing and Pilot Testing for the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) (OMB Control No. 0921-1291, Exp. 03/31/2023)—Extension—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) plans has established a Generic Clearance (OMB Control No. 0920-1291) to support information collection for cognitive testing and pilot testing activities. Information collections that support the
Cognitive testing and pilot testing are methodological procedures conducted to prepare for a large scale or key information collection. Cognitive and pilot testing activities are designed to improve information quality and the efficiency of information collection by addressing issues such as the use of new or existing survey questions, question formatting, survey protocols, data collection software systems and other related processes.
Cognitive testing is a technique used to clarify the meaning of survey questions and/or the response options for questions and contributes to the understanding of the validity and reliability of questions used for a variety of public health purposes. Cognitive testing is conducted early in the process of considering questions for use in a survey or other information collection activity. This type of testing is usually conducted in a controlled setting, and respondents participate in a discussion or interview with a trained interviewer and may respond individually or as members of focus groups.
Questions may undergo cognitive testing because they have not been used in previous surveys; for example, questions related to the emergence of a new public health concern (such as e-cigarettes). In addition, testing may be conducted on previously used questions to assess their use in a different information collection mode. Testing might be conducted to convert questions developed for a paper survey to an interview format or an electronic survey format; or testing might be conducted to identify issues specific to a subpopulation or language translation. Respondents are asked to review questions and/or surveys to discuss their impressions of the items under consideration, the questions, the response set, individual words within the question, or the focus of the questionnaire itself. Incentives may be offered to respondents who participate in the in-person phase of cognitive testing since these activities involve additional burden and inconvenience.
Pilot testing is used to determine whether methods or modes of data collection (such as phone or mail surveys, in-person interviews or online data collection) are appropriate and efficient ways of collecting data. Pilot testing may include testing of changes in sampling or contacting potential respondents.
The majority of participants in cognitive and pilot testing activities are expected to be adults >18 years of age. Information may be collected during the recruitment process to assist in the selection of respondents. Respondents may be recruited to take part in testing through online, mobile devices, mailings, or newspaper advertisements. If the participants are not recruited to be present at a physical location, they may be called and recruited by telephone.
Cognitive and pilot testing are efficient means of identifying problems with questions and procedures prior to implementation of data collection. Thus, they are cost effective approaches to providing evidence on survey questionnaire performance. A consequence of cognitive and pilot testing is to maintain high levels of participation in the information collection process itself.
Initial response and burden estimates are based on anticipated information collection needs for the BRFSS, with an additional allocation for a variety of NCCDPHP programs and collaborators. Each information collection activity conducted through this Generic Clearance will be submitted to OMB for approval in a project-specific information collection request that describes its purpose and methods.
Participation in cognitive and pilot testing is voluntary, but respondents will be encouraged to participate by explanations of the need for their input in the introduction of each survey. CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 8,950 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “National Disease Surveillance Program—I. Case Reports” 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 May 23, 2022, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Disease Surveillance Program—I. Case Reports (OMB Control No. 0920-0009, Exp. 08/31/2022)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Surveillance of the incidence and distribution of disease has been an important function of the US Public Health Service (PHS) since an 1878 Act of Congress authorized the PHS to collect morbidity reports. After the Malaria Control in War Areas Program had fulfilled its original 1942 objective of reducing malaria transmission, its basic tenets were carried forward and broadened by the formation of the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) in 1946. CDC was conceived of as a well-equipped, broadly staffed agency used to translate facts about analysis of morbidity and mortality statistics on communicable diseases and through field investigations. It was soon recognized that control measures (such as the DDT spraying for malaria) did not alleviate the threat of disease reintroduction. In 1950, the Malaria Surveillance Program began and in 1952, the National Surveillance Program started. Both programs were based on the premise that diseases cannot be diagnosed, prevented, or controlled until existing knowledge is expanded and new ideas developed and implemented. The original scope of the National Surveillance Program included the study of malaria, murine typhus, smallpox, psittacosis, diphtheria, leprosy, and sylvatic plague. Over the years, the mandate of CDC has broadened in preventive health activities and the surveillance systems maintained have expanded. This program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act, Section 301 and 306 (42 U.S.C. 241 and 242K).
This ICR covers surveillance activities for four, rare diseases:
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 98 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of one, and revocation of three, Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) (the Authorizations) issued to STS Lab Holdco (a subsidiary of
The Authorization for the Amazon Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 was effective May 28, 2021. The revocations for the Amazon Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test, and Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR Test are effective as of July 19, 2022.
Submit written requests for a single copy of the Authorization or the revocations to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a Fax number to which the documents may be sent. See the
Jennifer J. Ross, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8510 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.
Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1) a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50 of the U.S. Code, of attack with (A) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or (B) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to U.S. military forces;
Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the
Having concluded that the criteria for the issuance of the Authorization under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, on May 28, 2021, FDA issued an EUA to STS for the Amazon Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of this Authorization is provided, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
On August 11, 2021, FDA issued EUAs to STS Lab Holdco for the Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test and Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR Test, subject to the terms of the respective Authorizations. Notice of the issuance of these Authorizations was published in the
The authorization of a device for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act may, pursuant to section 564(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, be revoked when the criteria under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act for issuance of such authorization are no longer met (section 564(g)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act), or other circumstances make such revocation appropriate to protect the public health or safety (section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act).
On July 11, 2022, STS Lab Holdco requested revocation of, and on July 19, 2022, FDA revoked, the Authorizations for the Amazon Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test, and Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR Test. Because STS Lab Holdco has notified FDA that there is no viable (non-expired) Amazon Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test, or Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR Test remaining in distribution in the United States and requested FDA revoke the Authorizations for these devices, FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or safety to revoke these Authorizations.
An electronic version of this document and the full text of the revocations are available on the internet at
Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the Authorizations under section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has revoked the EUAs for STS Lab Holdco's Amazon Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR DTC Test, and Amazon Multi-Target SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR Test. The revocations in their entirety follow and provide an explanation of the reasons for each revocation, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before September 26, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Submit requests to Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, September 08, 2022, 11:00 a.m. to September 08, 2022, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to remove the visitor testing requirement for entering NIH facilities due to CDC updates published August 11, 2022,
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability of draft study and request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of the draft Pacific Coast Port Access Route Study (PAC-PARS) and requests public comments on the draft. This study evaluates safe access routes for the movement of vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports or places along the western seaboard of the United States and aims to determine whether a shipping safety fairway (“fairway”) and/or routing measures should be established, adjusted or modified.
Comments must be submitted to the online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0345 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
For information about this document call or email LCDR Sara Conrad, Coast Guard Pacific Area (PAC-54), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (510) 437-3813, email
We encourage you to submit comments regarding the results of the draft Pacific Coast Port Access Route Study. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We plan to hold several public meetings to receive oral comments on this draft PAC-PARS. The dates, times, and locations will be announced on our project web page
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act, (PWSA)(46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1)), authorizes the Commandant of the Coast Guard to designate necessary fairways and traffic separations schemes (TSSs) to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from United States ports. The designation of fairways and TSSs recognizes the paramount right of navigation over all other uses in the designated areas.
Before establishing or adjusting fairways, 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1) requires the Coast Guard to study potential traffic density and assess the need for safe access routes for vessels. During this process, the Coast Guard considers the views of the maritime community, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to reconcile the need for safe access routes with reasonable waterway uses.
On July 29, 2021, the Coast Guard announced that the Coast Guard Pacific Area Command would conduct a Pacific Coast Port Access Route Study (PAC-PARS) (86 FR 40791). The study area encompasses all vessel traffic patterns approaching and departing major ports along the west coast to include all current Traffic Separation Schemes and vessel maneuvering along the Pacific Coast from Washington to California and all federal navigable waters out to the EEZ. The PAC-PARS is focused on vessel traffic and navigation mitigation techniques to improve and support safe navigation transits within the major Pacific Coast Ports and the United States EEZ.
The PAC-PARS aims to enhance navigational safety by examining existing shipping routes and waterway uses and, to the extent practicable, reconciling the paramount right of navigation within designated port access routes with other waterway uses such as the development of aquaculture farms, offshore renewable energy, commercial space ports/re-entry sites, marine sanctuaries, ports supporting Panamax vessels, potential LNG ports and additional commercial vessel traffic.
After analyzing current and historical vessel traffic, fishing vessel information, agency and stakeholder experience in vessel traffic management, navigation, ship handling, and effects of weather, we have determined that there is a need to establish voluntary fairways for coastwise and nearshore vessel traffic to promote safety of navigation in the study area. As part of the draft PAC-PARS report, which is available for public review in this docket, charts of the recommended fairways are included as Appendices I, II, and III. Examples of public notice and outreach documents are included in Appendices IV-XI. Two vessel traffic analyses, for coastal waters and port approaches, are included as
We request your comments on any aspect of this study. Information received during this additional public comment period may result in changes to the study's recommendations prior to any future rulemakings or appropriate international agreements.
This notice is issued under authority of 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of renewal and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice seeks comments concerning FEMA's Individuals and Households Program, providing financial assistance to individuals whose primary residences were destroyed as a result of a Presidentially-declared disaster.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
The
This proposed information collection previously published in the
With regard to flood zones and coastal areas, the National Flood Insurance Reform Act and FEMA regulations require applicants who receive Federal financial assistance to purchase flood insurance for future flood damage to any insurable property for acquisition or construction purposes. This requirement applies only to real and personal property that is, or will be, in a designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and can be insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Applicants who live in a designated SFHA and receive Individuals and Households Program (IHP) assistance for Home Repair, Home Replacement, Personal Property, or Permanent Housing Construction (PHC) must obtain and maintain flood insurance coverage for at least the amount of disaster assistance they receive from FEMA for NFIP-insurable real or personal property items. Applicants may satisfy the insurance requirement by purchasing private insurance or a policy through the NFIP. Applicants who do not obtain and maintain flood insurance will be ineligible for IHP assistance for flood-damaged real or personal property in future disasters with flood-related damage.
The NFIP was created to reduce the impact of flooding on private and public structures by providing affordable insurance to property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations.
Further, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) protects coastal areas from development by limiting Federal financial assistance for development-related activities in designated Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) areas. CBRS areas are coastal areas that protect valuable habitat for fish and wildlife and are subject to wave, wind, and tidal forces, and are mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The CBRS contains two types of coastal barrier areas: CBRS Units and otherwise protected areas (OPAs). An eligible applicant whose pre-disaster primary
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, with change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) Memorandum of Agreement Applications.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2022.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, submit comments at
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Wade Witmer, Deputy for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Program, FEMA, National Continuity Programs, (202) 646-2523,
Public Law 114-143, the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act of 2015, and Presidential Executive Order 13407, Public Alert and Warning System, establishes the policy for an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other hazards to public safety and wellbeing. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is the Department of Homeland Security's response to the Executive Order. The Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5121,
The IPAWS Public Alerting Authorization application captures information detailing which types of events the local jurisdiction wants to be configured to use IPAWS for and which primary dissemination channels should be available. For example, if a community wants to send a Civil Emergency message (CEM) to broadcast across radio, television, and cable, they will request “CEM” for “EAS”—the Emergency Alert System. These requested permissions are reviewed by either the State or by Tribal authorities for compliance with established overall alerting policies and plans. IPAWS uses the approved information to configure permissions in IPAWS-OPEN.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna Guido, Management Analyst, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5535 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Holly A. Kelly Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, (7128), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-6324, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Anna Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, Jemine A. Bryon, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to submitter, Nacheshia Foxx, who is the Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Hartung.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A and are available for review at:
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(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.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(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.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), announces the annual meeting of Federal agencies and Tribes that participate in the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Act of 2017 also known as the “Public Law 477 Work Group.” The meeting will be conducted virtually via MS Teams and by telephone.
•
•
All Work Group activities and meetings will be conducted online and by phone. See the
Johnna Blackhair, Acting Deputy Bureau Director, Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
The annual Federal Partner and Tribal 477 Work Group meeting will be held virtually by MS Teams video conference using the Teams link provided below or by audio only using the call-in and passcode identified below.
In 2017, Congress enacted the Indian Employment Training and Related Services Consolidation Act of 2017, Public Law 115-93, codified at 25 U.S.C. 3401-3417 (“2017 Act”). The 2017 Act amended and expanded the Indian Employment and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, Public Law 102-477 by, in part, identifying twelve Federal agencies that are now subject to the amended law (as amended by the 2017 Act, “PL477”).
Under PL477, Tribes may propose to integrate eligible grant programs from the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing & Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, consolidate and reprogram grant funds in accordance with a single plan, budget, and report approved by the Secretary of the Interior (“477 Plan”). As required by PL477, the Department of the Interior and its eleven partner Federal agencies entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) governing the implementation of PL477. That MOA is being renegotiated among the twelve Federal partners and Tribal representatives.
As directed by PL477, the meeting will be co-chaired by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Bryan
To join and participate in the virtual meeting, please use the following connection information:
To join and participate in the virtual meeting, please use the following connection information:
This notice is published in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 3410(a)(3)(B)(i).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior
Notice of meeting.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is announcing that the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children will hold a two-day in-person and virtual meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to meet the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) for Indian children with disabilities.
The BIE Advisory Board meeting will be held Thursday, September 15, 2022 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT); and Friday, September 16, 2022 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
•
•
Jennifer Davis, Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Indian Education, 2600 N Central Ave., 12th floor, Suite 250, Phoenix, AZ 85004,
The Advisory Board was established under the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1400
The following general agenda items will be for the September 15, 2022 and September 16, 2022 meeting. A detailed agenda will be posted on the BIE website 24 to 48 hours prior to the first meeting day at
• Discussions with the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.
• Discussions with the U.S. Department of Education/Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)/and Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).
• Updates from the BIE Central Office.
• Updates from the BIE/Division of Performance and Accountability (DPA)/Special Education Program.
• Updates from the BIE Office of Sovereignty in Indian Education.
• The Advisory Board members will be working on and finalizing the 2022 annual report.
• Orientation for the Advisory Board members.
• Three Public Commenting Sessions will be provided during both meeting days.
○ On Thursday, September 15, 2022 two sessions (15 minutes each) will be provided, 11:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT; and 2:15 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. Public
○ On Friday, September 16, 2022 one 15-minute session will be provided, 11:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT. Public comments can be provided in-person, webinar, or telephone conference call.
To access the two-day in-person and virtual meeting (Thursday, September 15, 2022 and Friday, September 16, 2022) you can join through any of the following means.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 21, 2022, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Hasbro, Inc. of Pawtucket, Rhode Island and Spin Master, Inc. of Los Angeles, California. Supplements to the complaint were filed on July 29, 2022, and August 3, 2022. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain soft projectile launching devices, components thereof, ammunition, and products containing same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,371,282 (“the '282 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,640,683 (“the '683 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-15 and 17-21 of the '282 patent and claims 1-6 and 10-15 of the '683 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “projectile launchers designed to launch ammunition made of a hydrated super absorbent polymer (SAP) material, components of such projectile launchers, SAP ammunition for use in connection with such projectile launchers, and products containing same”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainants of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Katherine M. Hiner, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. on August 19, 2022. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of regarding certain outdoor and semi-outdoor electronic displays, products containing same, and components thereof. The complainant names as respondents: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, NJ; Samsung SDS Co. Ltd. of Korea; Samsung SDS America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, NJ; Coates Signco Pty Limited of Australia; Coates Visual LLC of Chicago, IL; and Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group of Aurora, IL. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondent's alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3636”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 1 meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or videoconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Daniel Beattie, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chair of the NEA on March 11, 2022, this session will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft environmental assessment supplement and finding of no significant impact; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and accompanying draft supplement to the NRC staff's environmental assessment (EA) for the license renewal of the Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (CBR) in situ uranium recovery (ISR) facility located in Dawes County, Nebraska. Based on the analysis in the draft EA Supplement, the NRC staff has preliminarily concluded that there will be no significant impacts to cultural resources from the renewal of CBR's license and, therefore, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) remains appropriate.
Submit comments by September 26, 2022. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jean Trefethen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0867; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0153 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment the draft FONSI and accompanying draft Supplement to the NRC staff's EA for the license renewal of CBR's ISR facility. The draft Supplement describes the NRC staff's efforts to address the deficiencies identified in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's partial initial decision (LBP-16-7), which found that the NRC staff did not meet its identification obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and was deficient under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “for failing to take a hard look at potential TCPs [traditional cultural properties] within the Crow Butte license area[.]” Specifically, the Supplement describes the methodology, implementation, and results of the 2021 tribal cultural survey to identify sites of significance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe. It also documents the NRC staff's evaluation of the identified sites according to the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the NRC staff's assessment of potential impacts of the license renewal on the identified sites under the NHPA (for sites eligible for the NRHP) or NEPA (for other sites of significance to the Tribe). Based on these evaluations in the EA Supplement, the NRC staff preliminarily concludes that there will be no significant impacts to cultural resources identified during the 2021 tribal cultural survey. Accordingly, based on the 2014 EA and the draft EA Supplement, the staff has preliminarily concluded that an environmental impact statement is not necessary and a FONSI remains appropriate.
Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with the requirements in part 51 of title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of receipt; availability; public meeting; and request for comment.
On December 23, 2020, Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI) submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a letter enclosing the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades), contingent upon the transfer of the Palisades license to HDI. The PSDAR, which includes the site-specific decommissioning cost estimate (DCE), provides an overview of HDI's planned activities, schedule, projected costs, and environmental impacts for the decommissioning of the Palisades. The Palisades license transfer transaction closed on June 28, 2022. Accordingly, the NRC is noticing receipt of the PSDAR and making it available for public comment. The NRC will hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the Palisades site to discuss the PSDAR's content and receive comments.
Submit comments by December 27, 2022. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Marlayna Doell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3178; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0158 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
HDI has the authority to conduct licensed activities under Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR 20 for Palisades and the general license for the Palisades independent spent fuel storage installation. These licenses provide, among other things, that the respective facilities are subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. Palisades is a pressurized-water reactor located in Covert, Michigan, in Van Buren County, that is permanently shut down.
On December 23, 2020, HDI submitted to the NRC the PSDAR for Palisades, contingent upon the transfer of the Palisades license to HDI. Paragraph 50.82(a)(4)(i) of title 10 of the
The NRC is requesting public comments on the PSDAR, including the DCE, for Palisades. The NRC is planning to hold a public meeting in the vicinity of Palisades to discuss the PSDAR's content and receive comments on Thursday, September 22, 2022, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. (CT), at the at the South Haven campus of Lake Michigan College, located at 125 Veterans Boulevard, in South Haven, Michigan. Please contact Marlayna Doell no later than September 9, 2022, if accommodations or special equipment is needed to attend or to provide comments. Additional information regarding the public meeting, including webinar information, will be posted on the NRC's public meeting website at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. The NRC's public meeting website is located at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The compliance date for Rule 3a71-3 was in November 2021. The representations contemplated by Rule 3a71-3 will be relied upon by counterparties to determine whether such transaction is a “transaction conducted through a foreign branch” of a U.S. bank counterparty, as defined in Rule 3a71-3(a)(3)(i), as well as to verify whether a security-based swap counterparty is a “U.S. person.” Counterparties to security-based swap transactions may voluntarily give such representations to one another to reduce operational costs and allow each party to ascertain whether such transaction is subject to certain Title VII requirements. Because any representations provided to counterparties under Rule 3a71-3 will constitute voluntary third-party disclosures, the Commission will not typically receive these disclosures.
The Commission believes that the representations contemplated by Rule 3a71-3 will, in most cases, be made through amendments to the parties' existing trading documentation (
Pursuant to Rule 3a71-3, parties to security-based swaps are permitted to
The Commission estimates the one-time third-party disclosure burden associated with developing representations under this collection of information will be, for each U.S. bank counterparty that will make such representations, no more than five hours, and up to $2,000 for the services of outside professionals. Across the nine respondents, this amounts to approximately 45 hours, or 15 hours per year when annualized over three years. This estimate assumes little or no reliance on standardized disclosure language.
The Commission expects that the majority of the burden associated with the new disclosure requirements will be experienced during the first year as language is developed and trading documentation is amended. The Commission further believes that the ongoing third-party disclosure burden associated with this requirement will be 10 hours per U.S. bank counterparty for verifying representations with existing counterparties, for a total of approximately 90 hours across the nine respondents.
The Commission believes that some of the entities that will comply with Rule 3a71-3 will seek outside counsel to help them develop new representations contemplated by Rule 3a71-3. For PRA purposes, the Commission assumes that all nine respondents will seek outside counsel for the first year only and will, on average, consult with outside counsel for a cost of up to $2,000. The Commission also assumes that none of the nine respondents will seek outside legal services for year two or year three. Thus, the Commission expects the aggregate cost to the nine respondents over the three-year period will be $18,000, or $6,000 per year when annualized over three years. The Commission expects the total labor cost per respondent will be approximately $666.67 when annualized over three years.
Pursuant to Rule 3a71-3(a)(4)(iv), persons may rely on representations from a counterparty that the counterparty does not satisfy the criteria defining U.S. person set forth in Rule 3a71-3(a)(4)(i), unless such person knows or has reason to know that the representation is not accurate. Commission staff has estimated, based on its understanding of OTC derivatives markets, including the domiciles of counterparties that are active in the market, that approximately 3,000 entities will provide representations that they do not meet the criteria necessary to be U.S. persons.
As with representations regarding whether a transaction is conducted through a foreign branch, the Commission estimates the maximum total third-party disclosure burden associated with developing new representations will be, for each counterparty that will make such representations, no more than five hours and up to $2,000 for the services of outside professionals. Across the 3,000 respondents, this aggregates to a maximum of approximately 15,000 hours, or 5,000 hours per year when annualized over three years. This estimate assumes little or no reliance on standardized disclosure language.
The Commission expects that the majority of the burden associated with the disclosure requirements will be experienced during the first year as language is developed and trading documentation is amended. After the new representations are developed and incorporated into trading documentation, the Commission believes that the annual third-party disclosure burden associated with this requirement will be no more than approximately 10 hours per counterparty for verifying representations with existing counterparties and onboarding new counterparties. Across the 3,000 respondents, this aggregates to a maximum of approximately 30,000 hours.
The Commission believes that some of the entities that comply with Rule 3a71-3 will seek outside counsel to help them develop new representations. For PRA purposes, the Commission assumes that all 3,000 respondents will seek outside legal for the first year only and will, on average, consult with outside counsel for a cost of up to $2,000. The Commission also assumes that none of those 3,000 respondents will seek outside legal services for year two or year three. Thus, the Commission expects that the aggregate cost over those 3,000 respondents over the three-year period will be $6 million, or $2 million per year when annualized over three years,. The Commission expects the total labor cost per respondent will be approximately $666.67 when annualized over three years.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing by October 25, 2022.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 13e-1 (17 CFR 240.13e-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78
An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Small Business Administration.
Notice of tribal consultation meeting; request for comments.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) announces that it is holding tribal consultation meetings in Anchorage, Alaska, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Washington, DC, as well as a Listening Session in Honolulu, Hawaii, concerning forthcoming proposed revisions to the 8(a) Business Development (BD) program regulations. Additionally, SBA requests comments and input on how best to propose several program policies the Agency is contemplating that would impact Alaska Native Corporations (ANC), tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO) (collectively, “entities”), and 8(a) Participants owned by such entities. Testimony presented at these tribal consultations will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration when the Agency deliberates on approaches to changes in the 8(a) BD program regulations.
The Tribal Consultation meeting dates are as follows:
1. Wednesday, September 14, 2022, 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (AKDT), Anchorage, Alaska. Pre-registration for this Tribal Consultation meeting is requested by September 9, 2022.
2. Tuesday, September 20, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (MDT), Albuquerque, New Mexico. Pre-registration for this Tribal Consultation meeting is requested by September 16, 2022.
3. Thursday, September 22, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (CDT), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Pre-registration for this Tribal Consultation meeting is requested by September 19, 2022.
4. Wednesday, October 5, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT), Washington, DC. Pre-registration for this Tribal Consultation meeting is requested by September 30, 2022.
5. The Listening Session will be held on Wednesday, September 28, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (HST), Honolulu, Hawaii. Pre-registration for this Listening Session is requested by September 23, 2022.
1. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Anchorage, Alaska will be held at the Z.J. Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, AK 99503.
2. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico will be held at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th Street NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104.
3. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will be held at the Metro Technology Centers, Springlake Campus Health Careers Center, 1720 Springlake Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73111.
4. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Washington, DC will be held at SBA Headquarters, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416. Commenters and attendees may participate in-person or remotely at this consultation meeting.
5. The Listening Session in Honolulu, Hawaii will be held at the SBA Hawaii District Office, 500 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 1-306, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
•
•
Chequita Carter, Program Assistant for
SBA is planning to issue a proposed rule concerning the 8(a) BD program regulations under RIN 3245-AH70. The proposed rule is intended to clarify regulatory provisions relating to both program eligibility and 8(a) contracts to eliminate confusion among small businesses and procuring activities. SBA anticipates that the proposed rule will be published prior to the tribal consultation meetings and the Listening Session announced in this Notice. SBA is seeking comments and input on the changes identified in the proposed rule.
Among other things, the proposed rule would require an entity, as part of its entity-owned business concern's 8(a) application, to establish a Community Benefits Plan laying out its commitments to give back to the Native community in several specific identified ways. SBA understands that not all of those commitments will come to fruition. Projected givebacks may be unattainable where actual revenues do not meet expectations or if other unforeseen business needs occur. However, SBA believes that there should be some programmatic consequences where estimated revenues were obtained but not all the committed benefits are given to the community. SBA is considering proposing certain consequences to the regulations to encourage entities to meet their commitments. SBA is seeking comments on what type of consequences should be imposed where SBA determines that an entity has not made good faith efforts to meet its stated commitments. One possibility that SBA is considering would be to disallow that entity from admitting any new business concerns to the 8(a) BD program until the entity meets the previous commitments with its business concern(s) already participating in the program. SBA is also considering whether there should be any other restrictions, such as restricting the award of additional sole source 8(a) contracts to any 8(a) Participant owned by the entity if SBA determines that the entity did not make good faith efforts to meet the commitments set forth in its Community Benefits Plan. SBA specifically asks for comments as to whether these consequences would be fair and reasonable. Additionally, SBA is seeking input on how best to encourage entities to meet their stated give-back goals.
In addition to the above referenced regulatory proposals, SBA is contemplating making the following substantive changes to the regulations governing the 8(a) BD program, and requests comments and input on how best to develop proposed regulatory revisions. Any such revisions would not be promulgated under RIN 3245-AH70; rather, SBA would propose them under a separate rulemaking after considering testimony from the tribal consultation meetings and the Listening Session.
The 8(a) BD program has positively impacted Native American communities through individual as well as tribal, ANC, and NHO participation. The dual purposes of tribal/ANC/NHO participation in the 8(a) BD program are: to develop viable small business concerns while at the same time creating opportunities to provide significant benefits to the Native communities that they serve. In this regard, SBA accepts that a portion of an entity-owned Participant's receipts must be retained for business development purposes. However, the clear legislative intent of entity participation in the 8(a) BD program is to benefit Native and underserved communities using the revenues derived from the program. Thus, while SBA recognizes that in-kind contributions can be beneficial to Native and underserved communities, SBA believes entities participating in the 8(a) BD program should contribute a portion of their receipts to the communities they serve. SBA seeks to ensure that both of these purposes are advanced and invites comments on how best that can be accomplished.
Since 2011, the 8(a) BD regulations have required each Participant owned by a Tribe, ANC, or NHO to annually submit to SBA information showing how the Tribe, ANC, or NHO has provided benefits to the applicable Native community due to the Tribe's/ANC's/NHO's participation in the 8(a) BD program through one or more firms. SBA is considering a proposal to require more precise cash benefit distributions to the applicable Native community to standardize SBA's collection and tracking of community benefits and in response to an observation that not all entities appear to be allocating an appropriate share of their 8(a) receipts to the communities they serve. To this end, some entity-owned Participants appear to report significant benefits primarily or exclusively in the form of in-kind contributions and, specifically, volunteer work performed by principals of the entity or its Participants.
SBA is considering a rule that would propose to establish a target that a certain percentage of the entity's 8(a) receipts combined from all its Participants should be distributed as a cash contribution to benefit the Native or underserved community. SBA is specifically seeking comments on: the target percentage amount that should be distributed as a cash contribution; whether the target should be tied to an entity's gross 8(a) receipts, or to profits derived by the entity's 8(a) Participants; whether the target percentage amount should increase based on how long an entity has owned business concerns participating in the 8(a) BD program or based on the number of Participants an entity owns; whether certain non-cash contributions or investments in the community should be considered in this measurement, including, but not limited to, community member employment; and any other measures SBA should consider to promote the dual purposes of tribal/ANC/NHO participation in the 8(a) BD program. The SBA additionally welcomes any estimates of costs to meet this requirement annually, as well as any feasibility concerns with such a requirement. The SBA also welcomes comments from any entity that has other proposed methods to track community benefits and reinvestment.
The purpose of these tribal consultation meetings is to conform to the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249), and SBA's Tribal Consultation Policy (
The format of these tribal consultation meetings will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written
Each tribal consultation meeting will be held for one day. The meeting in Anchorage, Alaska will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 2:30 p.m. (AKST), with a break from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.; the meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. (MDT), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.; the meeting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. (CDT), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.; the meeting in Washington, DC will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. (EDT), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.; and the Listening Session in Honolulu, Hawaii will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. (HST), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. SBA will adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.
SBA respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representative of the tribal communities or principal of a tribally-owned, ANC-owned, or NHO-owned 8(a) firm that is interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. However, pre-registration is not required for attendance. SBA requests that attendees register with SBA no later than: September 9, 2022, for the consultation meeting in Anchorage; September 16, 2022, for the consultation meeting in Albuquerque; September 19, 2022, for the consultation meeting in Oklahoma City; September 30, 2022, for the consultation meeting in Washington, DC; and September 23, 2022, for the Listening Session in Honolulu. To register, please contact Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs in writing at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation meeting, contact Chequita Carter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 08/19/2022.
Issued on 08/19/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17579 6 and for economic injury is 17580 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated 08/19/2022.
Issued on 08/19/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17581 5 and for economic injury is 17582 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California, Oregon.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than September 26, 2022. Individuals can obtain copies of these OMB clearance packages by writing to
• Is at least age 62 and under full retirement age in the month of the number holder's death; and
• Is receiving both reduced spouse's (or divorced spouse's) benefits and either retirement or disability benefits in the month before the month of the number holder's death.
To elect reduced widow(er) benefits, a recipient completes Form SSA-4111, and mails it back to SSA. SSA uses the information collected to pay a qualified dually entitled widow(er) (or surviving divorced spouse) who elects to receive a reduced widow(er) benefit. The respondents are qualified dually entitled widow(er)s (or surviving divorced spouse) who elect to receive a reduced widow(er) benefit.
South Carolina Central Railroad Company, LLC (SCRF), has filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 CFR 10502 for exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon approximately two miles of rail line over six railroad tracks that most recently served the Sonoco Products Company (Sonoco) in Hartsville, Darlington County, S.C. The rail line consists of the following: (1) Track 1 between Sonoco Lead mileposts 312.7 and 313.24, and its associated leads, Tracks 1a and 1b; (2) Tracks 2 and 2a, which do not have mileposts; and (3) Track 3 between Hartsville mileposts 312.85 and 313.56 (the Line). The Line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Code 29550 and has no rail stations.
According to SCRF, the Line is the stub end of a rail line over which SCRF provided rail service to Sonoco. SCRF states, however, that Sonoco is re-tooling its facility for a different commodity and will no longer require rail service, and that, following the abandonment, SCRF plans to transfer its interest in the Line to Sonoco to facilitate Sonoco's development of its property. Attached as an exhibit to the petition is a letter from Sonoco supporting the proposed abandonment.
SCRF states that, based on information in its possession, the Line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in SCRF's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by November 25, 2022.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 120 days after the filing of the petition for exemption, or 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption, whichever occurs sooner. Persons interested in submitting an OFA must first file a formal expression of intent to file an offer by September 6, 2022, indicating the type of financial assistance they wish to provide (
Following abandonment, the Line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for interim trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than September 15, 2022.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. AB 312 (Sub-No. 5X), must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on SCRF's representative, Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill PLC, Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Suite 2620, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Replies to the petition are due on or before September 15, 2022.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0294. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by OEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any other agencies or persons who comment during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact OEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA generally will be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Patriot Rail Company LLC (Patriot), SteelRiver Transport Ventures LLC; Global Diversified Infrastructure Fund (North America) LP; First State Infrastructure Managers (International) Limited; and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) (collectively, Patriot Rail), have filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to acquire control of 15 Class III rail carriers (the Pioneer Short Lines)
The transaction may be consummated on or after September 9, 2022, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
According to the verified notice, through a Stock Purchase Agreement, Patriot (an indirect holding of MUFG) will acquire a controlling interest in Pioneer, and, consequently, an indirect controlling interest in several Pioneer subsidiaries, including the Pioneer Short Lines.
The verified notice indicates that: (1) none of the Patriot Short Lines connect with any of the Pioneer Short Lines; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect any of the Patriot Short Lines or Pioneer Short Lines; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
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 49 U.S.C. 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this transaction.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than September 2, 2022 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36635, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Patriot Rail's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sipple LLC, 29 N Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606.
According to Patriot Rail, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Mai T. Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) requests comments that identify online and physical markets to be considered for inclusion in the 2022 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy (Notorious Markets List). The Notorious Markets List identifies examples of online and physical markets that reportedly engage in or facilitate substantial copyright piracy or trademark counterfeiting. The issue focus for the 2022 Notorious Markets List will examine the impact of online piracy on U.S. workers.
You should submit written comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Ariel Gordon, Director for Innovation and Intellectual Property, at
The United States is concerned with trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a commercial scale because these illicit activities cause significant financial losses for right holders, legitimate businesses, and governments. In addition, they undermine critical U.S. comparative advantages in innovation and creativity to the detriment of American workers, and can pose significant risks to consumer health and safety and privacy and security. Conducted under the auspices of the Special 301 program and the authority of the U.S. Trade Representative to address practices that have significant adverse impact on the value of U.S. innovation, the Notorious Markets List identifies examples of online and physical markets that reportedly engage in or facilitate substantial copyright piracy or trademark counterfeiting that infringe on U.S. intellectual property (IP).
Beginning in 2006, USTR identified notorious markets in the annual Special 301 Report. In 2010, USTR announced that it would publish the Notorious Markets List as an out-of-cycle review, separate from the annual Special 301 Report. USTR published the first Notorious Markets List in February 2011. USTR develops the annual Notorious Markets List based upon public comments solicited through the
The United States encourages owners and operators of markets reportedly involved in piracy or counterfeiting to adopt business models that rely on the licensed distribution of legitimate content and products and to work with right holders and enforcement officials to address infringement. USTR also encourages foreign government authorities to intensify their efforts to investigate reports of piracy and counterfeiting in such markets, and to pursue appropriate enforcement actions. The Notorious Markets List does not purport to reflect findings of legal violations, nor does it reflect the U.S. Government's analysis of the general IP protection and enforcement climate in the country or countries concerned. For an analysis of the IP climate in particular countries, please refer to the annual Special 301 Report, published each spring no later than 30 days after USTR submits the National Trade Estimate to Congress.
USTR invites written comments concerning examples of online and physical markets that reportedly engage in and facilitate substantial copyright piracy or trademark counterfeiting that infringe on U.S. IP. USTR also invites written comments for the Notorious Markets List issue focus that highlights an issue related to the facilitation of substantial trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy. The issue focus for the 2022 Notorious Markets List will examine the impact of online piracy on U.S. workers.
To facilitate the review, written comments should be as detailed as possible. Comments must clearly identify the market and the reasons why the commenter believes that the market should be included in the Notorious Markets List. Commenters should include the following information, as applicable:
• The domain name(s) of the market, the name(s) of the owner(s) or operator(s), the geographic area(s) where the market operates, and whether the market is owned, operated, or otherwise affiliated with a government entity.
• Estimate of the number of goods sold or otherwise made available on the market and any other indicia of the market's scale, reach, or relative significance in a given geographic area or with respect to a category of goods.
• Estimate of the number and types of goods sold or otherwise made available on the market that are counterfeit, either in aggregate or in relation to the total number and types of goods sold or otherwise made available on the market, a description of the methodology used to create the estimate and the timeframe the estimate was conducted, and information supporting the claims of counterfeiting.
• Estimate of economic harm to right holders resulting from the counterfeit goods and a description of the methodology used to calculate the harm.
• Whether the number and types of counterfeit goods or the economic harm has increased or decreased from previous years, and an approximate calculation of that increase or decrease for each year.
• Whether the counterfeit goods sold or otherwise made available on the market pose a risk to public health or safety.
• Any known contractual, civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement activity against the market and the outcome of that enforcement activity.
• Any actions taken by right holders, such as discussing concerns with the market, submitting takedown notices or requests to remove counterfeit goods, sending cease and desist letters, or requesting that the market enforce its terms of service or terms of use, and the outcome of these actions.
• Any actions taken by the market owners or operators to remove, limit, or discourage the availability of counterfeit goods, including policies to prevent or remove access to such goods, or to disable seller or user accounts, the effectiveness of market policies and guidelines in addressing counterfeiting, and the level of cooperation with right holders and law enforcement.
• Any other additional information relevant to the review.
• The domain name(s) of the market, the name(s) and location(s) of the hosting provider(s), the name(s) and location(s) of the owner(s) or operator(s), the geographic area(s) where the market operates, and whether the market is owned, operated, or otherwise affiliated with a government entity.
• Revenue sources such as sales, subscriptions, donations, upload incentives, or advertising, the methods by which that revenue is collected, and the entities that help facilitate the market's revenue.
• Description and estimate of economic harm to right holders resulting from piracy and a description of the methodology used to calculate the harm.
• Whether the number of pirated goods or files, or the economic harm, has increased or decreased from previous years, and an approximate calculation of that increase or decrease for each year.
• Any known contractual, civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement activity against the market and the outcome of that enforcement activity.
• Any actions taken by right holders, such as discussing concerns with the market, submitting takedown notices or requests to remove URLs or pirated content, sending cease and desist letters, or requesting that the market enforce its terms of service or terms of use, and the outcome of these actions.
• Any actions taken by the market owners or operators to remove, limit, or discourage the availability of pirated goods or services, including policies to prevent or remove access to such goods or services, or to disable seller or user accounts, the effectiveness of market policies and guidelines in addressing piracy, and the level of cooperation with right holders and law enforcement.
• Any other additional information relevant to the review.
• The market's name(s), street address, neighborhood or shopping district, city, and the identity of the principal owner(s) or operator(s).
• Whether the market is owned, operated, or otherwise affiliated with a government entity.
• Types of counterfeit or pirated products or services sold, traded, distributed, or otherwise made available at the market.
• Volume of counterfeit or pirated goods or services or other indicia of the market's scale, reach, or relative significance in a given geographic area or with respect to a category of goods or services.
• Description and estimate of economic harm to right holders resulting from the piracy or counterfeiting and a description of the methodology used to calculate the harm.
• Whether the volume of counterfeit or pirated goods or estimates of harm has increased or decreased from previous years, and an approximate calculation of that increase or decrease for each year.
• Whether the infringing goods or services sold, traded, distributed, or made available pose a risk to public health or safety.
• Any known contractual, civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement activity against the market and the outcome of that enforcement activity.
• Additional actions taken by right holders, such as discussing concerns with the market, sending cease and desist letters, sending warning letters to landlords or requests to enforce the terms of their leases, and the outcome of these actions.
• Additional actions taken by the market owners or operators to remove, limit, or discourage the availability of counterfeit or pirated goods or services, the effectiveness of market policies and guidelines in addressing counterfeiting and piracy, and the level of cooperation with right holders and law enforcement.
• Any other additional information relevant to the review.
All submissions must be in English and sent electronically via
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions. Instead, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the comment itself, rather than submitting them as separate files.
Please include the name, email address, and phone number of an individual USTR can contact if there are issues or questions with the submission. The contact information can be included in the submission or sent to Ariel Gordon, Director for Innovation and Intellectual Property, at
For any comment submitted electronically that contains business confidential information (BCI), the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI'. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. A filer requesting business confidential treatment must certify that the information is business confidential and that they would not customarily release it to the public. Additionally, the submitter should type `Business Confidential 2022 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy' in the `comment' field. Filers of comments containing BCI also must submit a public version. Begin the file name of the public version with the character `P'. USTR will place the non-business confidential version in the docket at
As noted, USTR strongly urges submitters to file comments through
USTR will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except properly designated BCI. You can view comments on
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comment.
The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release 6.71 acres at the Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the City of Gainesville , dated October 15, 1948. The release of property will allow the City of Gainesville to dispose of the property for other than aeronautical purposes. The property is located on the in the North one-half of Section 23 and 24, Township 9 South, Range 20 East, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The parcel is currently designated as surplus property. The property will be released of its federal obligations for the purpose of selling the property at fair market value for light industrial future commercial development. The fair market value lease of this parcel has been determined to be $216,000. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Gainesville Regional Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.
Comments are due on or before September 26, 2022.
Documents are available for review at Gainesville Regional Airport, and the FAA Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Jenny Iglesias-Hamann, Community Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819.
Jenny Iglesias-Hamann, Community Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819, (407) 487-7234.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the “waiver” or “modification” of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is considering a proposal to change 18.23 Acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of airport property located at French Lick Municipal Airport, French Lick, IN. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use. The current county road adjacent to the subject property was constructed on previous airport property sold by the Airport to Orange County; however, due to unforeseen geological conditions, the road has failed multiple times. As a corrective action, Orange County, in partnership with the Indiana Department of Transportation seek to realign a portion of the road to a location to avoid the region with the geologic issues. In order to facilitate this realignment, the Airport was approached with a second request to
Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2022.
Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA Chicago Airports District Office, Joseph D. Wejman, Program Manager, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, 60018. Telephone: (847) 294-7526/Fax: (847) 294-7046. and Matthew Carson, Airport Manager, 9764 West County Road 375 South, French Lick, IN 47432. Telephone: (812) 936-2222/Fax: (812) 936-3134.
Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Joseph D. Wejman, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone Number: (847) 294-7526/FAX Number: (847) 294-7046.
Joseph D. Wejman, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone Number: (847) 294-7526/FAX Number: (847) 294-7046.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
The subject land is part of two parcels. Parcel 1 was acquired fee simple by the French Lick Board of Aviation Commissioners from a private owner with the assistance of federal funds under Federal Aid to Airport Program Project No. 9-12-041-6301 in 1963. The subject sub-parcels (1, 1A and 1B) within Parcel 1 total approximately 10.209 acres. Parcel 2 was acquired fee simple by the French Lick BOAC from a private owner with the assistance of federal funds under Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant number 3-18-0027-08 in 2010. The subject sub-parcel (2) is approximately 8.021 acres. The Sponsor is seeking FAA approval for release of land covenants associated with fee simple ownership to provide right of way for the Orange County Commissioners to re-align and re-construct County Road CR 300 South/Airport Road that will provide a safe roadway that meets current roadway design standards. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use, as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to dispose of the property. No cash proceeds are expected as a result of the land release. The combined Fair Market Value of the parcels to be released is appraised at $73,085. The FMV received for the parcels will come in the form of excess materials (soil/fill) from the county road project that will be stockpiled on airport property for its ultimate use for an upcoming apron expansion project at French Lick Municipal Airport. Based on an engineering analysis that looked at the quality and dollar value of the fill, its value far exceeds the appraised value of the land parcels being released to Orange County for the relocated County Road CR 300/Airport Road. This in-kind project material value benefits the Airport and since it exceeds the estimated value of the land to be released.
The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the French Lick Municipal Airport, French Lick, Indiana from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 2 West, French Lick Township, Orange County, Indiana, and being that part of the grantor(s) land lying within the right-of-way lines depicted on the attached Right-of-Way Parcel Plat, marked EXHIBIT “B”, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said quarter section designated as point “422” on said Parcel Plat; thence South 1 degree 18 minutes 58 seconds East 1,332.46 feet along the east line of said southwest quarter section to the southwest corner of said quarter-quarter section designated as point “402” on said Parcel Plat; thence South 89 degrees 02 minutes 26 seconds West 524.33 feet along the north line of said quarter-quarter section to the western boundary of Airport Road as defined in Instrument Number 193232; thence North 10 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds East 8.01 feet along said western boundary; thence along said western boundary Northerly 88.52 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 550.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 6 degrees 14 minutes 37 seconds East and a length of 88.43 feet to the point designated as “1000” on said Parcel Plat and the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description: thence North 12 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds West 137.56 feet to the point designated “1001” on said Parcel Plat; thence North 27 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds West 154.16 feet to the point designated “1002” on said Parcel Plat; thence North 13 degrees 45 minutes 17 seconds West 124.79 feet to the point designated “1003 ” on said Parcel Plat; thence North 3 degrees 10 minutes 59 seconds East 192.36 feet to the western boundary of said Airport Road designated as point “1004” on said Parcel Plat; thence along the western boundary the following (4) courses: 1) South 14 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds East 211.97 feet; 2) South 2 degrees 45 minutes 07 seconds West 52.50 feet; 3) South 16 degrees 37 minutes 15 seconds East 175.97 feet to the Pls; 4) Southerly 159.59 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 550.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 6 degrees 40 minutes 48 seconds East and a length of 159.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 0.422 acres, more or less.
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 2 West, French Lick Township, Orange County, Indiana, and being that part of the grantor(s) land lying within the right-of-way lines depicted on the attached Right-of-Way Parcel Plat, marked EXHIBIT “B”, described as follows: BEGINNING on the east line of said quarter section at a point South 1 degree 18 minutes 58 seconds East 184.62 feet from the northeast corner of said quarter section designated as point “422” on said Parcel Plat, which point is on the eastern boundary of Airport Road as defined in Instrument Number 193232;
A part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 2 West, French Lick Township, Orange County, Indiana, and being that part of the grantor(s) land lying within the right-of-way lines depicted on the attached Right-of-Way Parcel Plat, marked EXHIBIT “B”, described as follows: BEGINNING on the south line of said quarter section at a point North 89 degrees 12 minutes 11 seconds East 686.92 feet from the southwest corner of said quarter section designated as point “422” on said Parcel Plat, which point is on the southern boundary of said Airport Road as defined in Instrument Number 193232; thence along the southern boundary of said Airport Road the following (7) courses: (1) North 58 degrees 51 minutes 47 seconds East 132.00 feet; (2) North 74 degrees 14 minutes 22 seconds East 406.73 feet; (3) Easterly 662.21 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 1,435.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 87 degrees 27 minutes 35 seconds East and a length of 656.35 feet; (4) South 86 degrees 24 minutes 29 seconds East 202.61 feet; (5) South 79 degrees 19 minutes 12 seconds East 50.00 feet; (6) South 65 degrees 39 minutes 32 seconds East 148.19 feet; (7) South 10 degrees 40 minutes 47 seconds West 105.36 feet (105.44 feet by Instrument Number 193232 to the south line of said quarter section; thence South 89 degrees 12 minutes 11 seconds West 1,527.12 feet along said south line to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 5.717 acres, more or less.
A part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 2 West, French Lick Township, Orange County, Indiana, and being that part of the grantor(s) land lying within the right-of-way lines depicted on the attached Right-of-Way Parcel Plat, marked EXHIBIT “B”, described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the southern boundary of Airport Road as defined in Instrument Number 193231 and the west line of said quarter section, which point is located South 1 degree 18 minutes 58 seconds East 184.62 feet of the northwest corner of said quarter section designated as point “422” on said Parcel Plat; thence along the southern boundary of said Airport Road the following (4) courses: (1) North 76 degrees 12 minutes 52 seconds East 184.58 feet (183.09 feet by Instrument Number 193231); (2) South 89 degrees 58 minutes 51 seconds East 210.41 feet (210.96 feet by Instrument Number 193231); (3) North 85 degrees 32 minutes 57 seconds East 50.99 feet (50.64 feet by Instrument Number 193231); (4) North 58 degrees 51 minutes 47 seconds East 282.85 feet (282.44 feet by Instrument Number 193231); to the north line of said quarter section; thence North 89 degrees 12 minutes 11 seconds East 1,210.67 feet along said north line to the easternmost corner of the grantor(s) land designated as point “1010” on said Parcel Plat; thence South 75 degrees 36 minutes 52 seconds West 1,947.97 feet along the southern line of the grantor(s) land to the west line of said quarter section designated as point “1009” on said Parcel Plat; thence North 1 degree 18 minutes 58 seconds West 273.07 feet along said west line to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 8.021 acres, more or less.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated July 5, 2022, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to amend a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service (HOS) laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), which, in part, require a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive days. The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-2009-0078.
Specifically, ASLRRA seeks to amend its existing waiver to add 13 railroads that did not participate in the original waiver, but now wish to participate. ASLRRA states the following railroads expressed a desire to participate in the waiver, and maintain at their headquarters supporting documentation of employee support, as required:
• Elkhart and Western Railroad;
• Fort Smith Railroad;
• Garden City Western Railway;
• Georgia Southern Railway Company;
• Gettysburg and Northern Railway;
• Huron and Eastern Railway;
• Indiana Southwestern Railway;
• Kendallville Terminal Railway Company;
• Keokuk Junction Railway Company;
• Merced County Central Valley Railroad;
• Michigan Southern Railroad Company;
• Mississippi Central Railroad; and
• Napoleon, Defiance, and Western Railway.
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
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by October 11, 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.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., (CTP), has determined that certain Cybex child restraint systems distributed by CTP do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,
Send comments on or before September 26, 2022.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
This notice of receipt of CTP's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
After receiving a July 2021 Information Request from NHTSA relating to this noncompliance, CTP, together with its supplier Holmbergs, took certain investigative actions, including reviewing prior test results. CTP learned that Holmbergs did not have any historical test data for the hex bar or its through-adjuster abrasion testing pursuant to FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1).
CTP believes that the subject noncompliance with the hex bar test is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on results from overload dynamic crash tests it conducted on CYBEX Aton M child restraints assembled using abraded adjuster webbing from the samples averaging 64 percent retained breaking strength. CTP asserts that because the adjuster webbing loads in the dynamic tests were only a small fraction (11 percent) of the abraded webbing's retained strength, a significant safety margin is built into the central adjuster webbing making it “sufficient for this application,” (Aton M and similar). This difference, CTP explains, shows that significantly more degradation (of webbing strength) could be tolerated. According to internal crash test data collected from tests varying in configuration, ATDs, attachment methods and crash severities, CTP states that the peak central adjuster strap load recorded was 4745 N. CTP also states that the dynamic crash tests of the child restraints with the hex bar abraded webbing showed that structural integrity of the child restraint was maintained and that the occupant was retained.
CTP notes that NHTSA's laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies
Holmbergs provided to CTP evidence of its internal procedures and control plans designed to ensure all regulatory requirements are satisfied. CTP's Quality Management System (QMS) requires review and acceptance of Holmbergs' Control Plan prior to supplying the subject webbing to CTP. CTP explains it “relies on its suppliers to self-certify compliance to certain standards and requirements” and that Holmbergs “was following the Aton M US Control Plan” based on CTP's On-going Quality Control (OQC) reports. CTP provided the Control Plan, OQC and other documents in its April 14, 2022, supplemental response to NHTSA.
CTP claims it has implemented replacement central adjuster webbing on new child restraints manufactured beginning October 27, 2021, and that this webbing complies with all retained tensile strength requirements after having been subject to both hex bar and through-adjuster testing. Additionally, CTP states it has clarified to its webbing supplier that the supplied webbing must comply with both available abrasion tests in its specificiations. Finally, CTP states that since 2017 no central adjuster webbing or central adjuster assembly issues have been observed.
Details of CTP's investigation and testing can be found in its amended petition at
CTP concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject child restraints that CTP no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve child restraint distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraints under their control after CTP notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On August 15, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. CEPHUS, Sayma Syrenius (a.k.a. CEPHAS, Syrenius; a.k.a. CEPHUS, Cyrenius; a.k.a. CEPHUS, Syrenius; a.k.a. CEPHUS, Syrennius), Liberia; DOB 21 Sep 1965; POB Saykleken, Liberia; nationality Liberia; Gender Male; Passport PP0010178 (Liberia) expires 31 Oct 2022; alt. Passport AP0003208 (Liberia) expires 21 Oct 2023 (individual) [GLOMAG]
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B)(1) of Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption,” 82 FR 60839, 3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 399, (E.O. 13818) for being a foreign person who is a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery.
2. TWEHWAY, Bill (a.k.a. TWEHWAY, Bill Teah), Monrovia, Liberia; DOB 27 Oct 1965; POB River Cess Town, Liberia; nationality Liberia; Gender Male; Passport DP0003004 (Liberia) expires 27 Dec 2022 (individual) [GLOMAG]
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B)(1) of E.O. 13818 for being a foreign person who is a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery.
3. MCGILL, Nathaniel (a.k.a. MCGILL, Nathaniel F.), Paynesville, Liberia; DOB 01 Jan 1971; POB Belle Yella, Liberia; nationality Liberia; Gender Male; Passport DP0002800 (Liberia) expires 19 Apr 2023 (individual) [GLOMAG]
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B)(1) of E.O. 13818 for being a foreign person who is a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final rules.
This document includes final rules under the No Surprises Act, which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). The document finalizes certain disclosure requirements relating to information that group health plans, and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage, must share about the qualifying payment amount (QPA) under the interim final rules issued in July 2021, titled
Shira McKinlay, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, at 202-317-5500; Elizabeth Schumacher or David Sydlik, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, at 202-693-8335; Deborah Bryant, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, at 301-492-4293; Lindsey Murtagh, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, at 301-492-4106.
Individuals interested in obtaining information from the Department of Labor (DOL) concerning employment-based health coverage laws may call the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Toll-Free Hotline at 1-866-444-EBSA (3272) or visit the DOL's website (
In addition, information from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on private health insurance coverage, coverage provided by non-Federal governmental group health plans, and requirements that apply to health care providers, health care facilities, and providers of air ambulance services can be found on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) website (
On December 27, 2020, the CAA, which includes the No Surprises Act, was enacted.
The No Surprises Act provisions that apply to health care providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services, such as prohibitions on balance billing for certain items and services and requirements related to disclosures about balance billing protections, were added to title XXVII of the PHS Act in a new part E.
The Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services
The July 2021 interim final rules implement sections 9816(a)-(b) and 9817(a) of the Code, sections 716(a)-(b) and 717(a) of ERISA, and sections 2799A-1(a)-(b), 2799A-2(a), 2799A-7, 2799B-1, 2799B-2, 2799B-3, and 2799B-5 of the PHS Act.
Among other requirements, the July 2021 interim final rules generally prohibit balance billing for items and services subject to the requirements in those interim final rules.
The No Surprises Act directs the Departments to specify the information that a plan or issuer must share with a nonparticipating provider, nonparticipating emergency facility, or nonparticipating provider of air ambulance services, as applicable, after determining the QPA. Therefore, 26 CFR 54.9816-6T(d), 29 CFR 2590.716-6(d), and 45 CFR 149.140(d) require that plans and issuers make certain disclosures about the QPA with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment, and that plans and issuers provide certain additional information upon request of the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services. This information must be provided in writing, either on paper or electronically, to a nonparticipating provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services, as applicable, when the QPA serves as the recognized amount.
With an initial payment or notice of denial of payment, a plan or issuer must provide the QPA for each item or service involved as well as a statement certifying that, based on the determination of the plan or issuer: (1) the QPA applies for purposes of the recognized amount (or, in the case of air ambulance services, for calculating the participant's, beneficiary's, or enrollee's cost sharing), and (2) each QPA shared with the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services was determined in compliance with the methodology outlined in the July 2021 interim final rules.
A plan or issuer is also required to provide a statement that, if the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services wishes to initiate a 30-day open negotiation period for purposes of determining the amount of total payment, the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services may contact the appropriate person or office to initiate open negotiation, and that if the 30-day open negotiation period does not result in an agreement on the payment amount, the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services typically may initiate the Federal IDR process within 4 days after the end of the open negotiation period. The Departments note that these time frames are measured in business days, and plans and issuers should reflect this in the statement. The plan or issuer must provide contact information, including a telephone number and email address, for the appropriate office or person for the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services to contact to initiate open negotiation for purposes of determining an amount of payment (with the amount including cost sharing) for the item or service.
It has come to the Departments' attention that some plans and issuers are requiring nonparticipating providers, nonparticipating emergency facilities, and nonparticipating providers of air ambulance services to utilize plan- or issuer-owned web systems to initiate an open negotiation period. As discussed earlier, the July 2021 interim final rules require plans and issuers to provide a telephone number and email address for providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services to initiate the open
In addition, upon request by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services, a plan or issuer must provide, in a timely manner, information about whether the QPA includes contracted rates that were not set on a fee-for-service basis for the specific items and services and whether the QPA for those items and services was determined using underlying fee schedule rates or a derived amount.
Finally, upon request by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services, the plan or issuer must provide a statement, if applicable, that the plan's or issuer's contracted rates include risk-sharing, bonus, penalty, or other incentive-based or retrospective payments or payment adjustments that were excluded for purposes of calculating the QPA for the items and services involved.
The October 2021 interim final rules build on the July 2021 interim final rules and implement the Federal IDR process under sections 9816(c) and 9817(b) of the Code, sections 716(c) and 717(b) of ERISA, and sections 2799A-1(c) and 2799A-2(b) of the PHS Act.
The October 2021 interim final rules provide for a Federal IDR process that group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage and nonparticipating providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services may use to determine the out-of-network rate for items and services that are emergency services, non-emergency services furnished by nonparticipating providers with respect to patient visits to participating facilities, and air ambulance services furnished by nonparticipating providers of air ambulance services, where an All-Payer Model Agreement or specified State law does not apply. The October 2021 interim final rules generally specify rules to implement the Federal IDR process, including the requirements governing the open negotiation period; the initiation of the Federal IDR process; the Federal IDR process following initiation, including the selection of a certified IDR entity, submission of offers, payment determinations, and written decisions; costs of the Federal IDR process; certification of IDR entities, including the denial or revocation of certification of an IDR entity; and the collection of information related to the Federal IDR process from certified IDR entities to satisfy reporting requirements under the statute.
The October 2021 interim final rules provide that, not later than 30 business days after selection of a certified IDR entity, the certified IDR entity must select one of the offers submitted by the plan or issuer and the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services to be the out-of-network rate for the qualified IDR item or service.
The October 2021 interim final rules state that, in selecting the offer, the certified IDR entity must consider the QPA for the applicable year for the same or similar item or service, or, in the case of batched or bundled items or services, the QPA or QPAs for the applicable year. The preamble to the July 2021 interim final rules provides that if multiple items and services are reimbursed under non-fee-for-service contractual arrangements, such as a bundled or capitated arrangement, and are billed for under a single billing code, plans and issuers must calculate a QPA for each item or service using the underlying fee schedule rates for the relevant items and services if the underlying fee schedule rates are available.
The October 2021 interim final rules also require the parties to provide certain information to the certified IDR entity, including practice size and practice specialty or type; geographic region used to calculate the QPA; the QPA for the applicable year for the same or similar item or service as the qualified IDR item or service; and, if applicable, information showing that the Federal IDR process is inapplicable to the dispute. In addition, prior to vacatur in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in the cases of
For items and services that are not air ambulance services, in determining which offer to select, the certified IDR entity must consider the following additional information under certain circumstances:
1. The level of training, experience, and quality and outcomes measurements of the provider or facility that furnished the qualified IDR item or service (such as those endorsed by the consensus-based entity authorized in section 1890 of the Social Security Act).
2. The market share held by the provider or facility or that of the plan or issuer in the geographic region in which the qualified IDR item or service was provided.
3. The acuity of the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee who received the qualified IDR item or service, or the complexity of furnishing the qualified IDR item or service to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee.
4. The teaching status, case mix, and scope of services of the facility that furnished the qualified IDR item or service, if applicable.
5. Demonstration of good faith efforts (or lack thereof) made by the provider or facility or the plan or issuer to enter into network agreements with each other, and, if applicable, contracted rates between the provider or facility and the plan or issuer during the previous 4 plan years.
Under the October 2021 interim final rules, the certified IDR entity may only consider this information submitted by the parties if the information is credible and relates to the offer submitted by either party.
The October 2021 interim final rules also provided, prior to vacatur in
Not later than 30 business days after the selection of the certified IDR entity, the certified IDR entity must notify parties to the dispute of the selection of the offer and provide a written decision,
The October 2021 interim final rules also implemented the Federal IDR process for qualified IDR services that are air ambulance services. The process for a certified IDR entity to select an offer in a dispute related to qualified IDR services that are air ambulance services is essentially the same as that for other qualified IDR items or services. As with disputes related to qualified IDR items or services that are not air
1. The quality and outcomes measurements of the provider that furnished the services.
2. The acuity of the condition of the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee receiving the service, or the complexity of furnishing the service to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee.
3. The training, experience, and quality of the medical personnel that furnished the air ambulance services.
4. Ambulance vehicle type, including the clinical capability level of the vehicle.
5. Population density of the point of pick-up (as defined in 42 CFR 414.605) for the air ambulance (such as urban, suburban, rural, or frontier).
6. Demonstrations of good faith efforts (or lack thereof) made by the nonparticipating provider of air ambulance services or the plan or issuer to enter into network agreements with each other and, if applicable, contracted rates between the provider of air ambulance services and the plan or issuer during the previous 4 plan years.
As with qualified IDR items or services that are not air ambulance services, the October 2021 interim final rules provide that after considering the QPA, additional information requested by the certified IDR entity from the parties, and all of the credible information submitted by the parties that is consistent with the requirements and is not prohibited information, the certified IDR entity must select the offer closest to the QPA, unless the certified IDR entity determined that the credible information submitted by the parties clearly demonstrates that the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate, or if the offers are equally distant from the QPA but in opposing directions. In those cases, the October 2021 interim final rules require the certified IDR entity to select the offer that the certified IDR entity determined best represents the value of the item or service, which could be either party's offer.
In response to the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules, the Departments received thousands of comments on many different aspects of the rules. In particular, the Departments received many comments related to a clarification in the preamble to the October 2021 interim final rules
With respect to the information that must be shared about the QPA, the Departments received comments on both the July 2021 interim final rules and the October 2021 interim final rules supporting the disclosure requirement and emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the QPA and other information related to the item or service are provided to providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services at the time of the initial payment or notice of denial of payment. Many commenters on the July 2021 interim final rules stressed that the methodology to calculate the QPA should be transparent, and that the Departments should expand the range of information that is shared with providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services with the QPA. Some commenters felt the degree of disclosure was insufficient, and that it provided too much power and discretion to plans and issuers. Others, however, questioned whether plans, in particular, would be able to obtain the information required under the July 2021 interim final rules, as much of the information may be in the control of vendors or other service providers. In particular, the Departments received comments in response to the July 2021 interim final rules and the October 2021 interim final rules requesting that the disclosures that must be provided with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment include additional information about how the QPA was determined to ensure that providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services have sufficient information when the Federal IDR process is used for a payment determination. For example, commenters requested that plans and issuers be required, without a request, to provide information on the number of contracts and the geographic region used to calculate the QPA, whether the QPA is based on downcoding
The manner in which items and services are coded, including the concept of downcoding claims was reflected in both the July 2021 interim final rules and the October 2021 interim final rules. The preamble to the July 2021 interim final rules noted that it is important that the QPA methodology account for modifiers that affect payment rates.
With respect to the payment determination standards under the Federal IDR process, the Departments received numerous comments from various stakeholders about the provisions that govern the certified IDR entity's consideration of the statutory factors during the payment determination process. Many commenters supported the approach set forth in the October 2021 interim final rules that directs the certified IDR entity to begin with the QPA as a baseline when making a payment determination, which those commenters highlighted as an important part of the payment determination process that would ensure that the surprise billing provisions lead to lower health care costs for all consumers. Furthermore, some commenters stated that the approach taken in the October 2021 interim final rules is crucial to achieving the budget savings the Congressional Budget Office calculated. Those commenters stated that the approach taken would shield consumers from surprise bills and ever higher insurance premium costs. Commenters stated that the October 2021 interim final rules reinforce the statutory directive that the QPA is the primary consideration for the certified IDR entity. Commenters also stated this use of the QPA represents a reasonable, market-based rate and would encourage greater participation in health plan networks.
Commenters noted that there may be circumstances in which the appropriate out-of-network rate would exceed the QPA, and that the October 2021 interim final rules properly provide a pathway for the certified IDR entity to reach that determination when it can be justified. These commenters highlighted that nothing in the October 2021 interim final rules required a certified IDR entity to default to the selection of the QPA or the offer closest to it, but rather that the rule correctly mandated that all credible information be considered. Commenters also stated that it was not unreasonable to require a party to document why the QPA is not the appropriate payment amount. Other commenters raised concerns about giving the same weight to all factors because many of the additional circumstances outlined in the rule, such as patient acuity and complexity of care, could already be incorporated into the QPA calculation. Commenters also noted that the October 2021 interim final rules provide clear guidance to certified IDR entities, which would reduce variability in payment determinations and better position the parties to settle disputes before reaching the Federal IDR process, by giving the parties a better sense of how payment determinations would be made.
Other commenters disagreed with the approach under the October 2021 interim final rules and expressed opposition to the emphasis placed on the QPA during the Federal IDR process. Many of these commenters criticized the rule as establishing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the QPA as the out-of-network rate while failing to equip the parties with the necessary information to rebut the presumption. Some commenters stated that the Departments disregarded bipartisan Congressional intent and tipped the scales in the Federal IDR process in favor of health plans and issuers. Commenters expressed concern that emphasizing the QPA ignores the complexity of billing factors, such as modifiers and the practice of bundling multiple health care services under a single billing code, and creates an incentive for the plan or issuer to downcode claims in bad faith. Commenters also expressed concern that the prominence of the QPA could drive down reimbursement rates for providers that are currently reimbursed above the median contracted rate, which they argued could jeopardize network adequacy and viability of physician practices and, commenters claimed, further drive down the QPA. A number of commenters stated that the emphasis given to the QPA would provide an incentive for plans and issuers to prefer out-of-network care, potentially resulting in reduced networks, because, ultimately, plans and issuers would pay the QPA rather than a market rate driven by the particular circumstances of the care delivered. Commenters also asserted that showing that the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate would burden providers and facilities who lack the resources to gather and submit this information during the Federal IDR process.
Commenters who disagreed with the approach set forth in the October 2021 interim final rules stated that certain provisions created a rebuttable presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate, and these commenters requested that the Departments remove these provisions, and instead issue rulemaking and guidance that instructs certified IDR entities to consider all permissible and relevant information submitted by the parties. Other commenters suggested alternative approaches for the provisions that govern the certified IDR entity's consideration of the enumerated factors. Some commenters requested that equal weight be given to the QPA and the contracted rates between the provider or facility and plan or issuer during the previous 4 years. Other commenters requested that the Departments replace the QPA as the baseline in the Federal IDR process with a different amount, such as the actual amount paid to a particular out-of-network provider for the same or similar item or service or the median contracted rate based on the amount negotiated under each contract the provider has with a plan or issuer.
A majority of commenters raised similar points with regard to the Federal IDR process for both non-air ambulance items and services and air ambulance
With respect to the certified IDR entity's written decision, several commenters supported the requirement for the certified IDR entity to provide a written decision, including the explanation of the underlying rationale for the certified IDR entity's determination. Other commenters stressed, however, that requiring the explanation of the rationale only if the certified IDR entity determined that the QPA was materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate could discourage certified IDR entities from considering additional factors. A few commenters requested an explanation be required when the certified IDR entity selected the amount closest to the QPA, including how the information about the other required considerations was assessed while others stated that a robust explanation should be required of the certified IDR entity in all cases. Commenters also stated that requiring an explanation in all cases would ensure that certified IDR entities considered all information submitted by the parties and allow the parties to fully understand the rationale behind the certified IDR entity's determination. Commenters asserted that this could improve the quality and efficiency of the IDR process over time, as parties become better informed as to the types of information certified IDR entities find credible and the circumstances in which the parties should pursue the IDR process. Other commenters requested the Departments either eliminate the requirement for a written decision or require a similar analysis in all written decisions.
On October 28, 2021, the Texas Medical Association, a trade association representing physicians, and a Texas physician filed a lawsuit against the Departments and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), asserting that certain provisions of the October 2021 interim final rules relating to the certified IDR entities' consideration of the QPA, as well as additional factors related to items and services that are not air ambulance services, should be vacated. Plaintiffs argued that the interim final rules ignored Congress's intent that certified IDR entities weigh the QPA and other factors without favoring any factor, and they asserted that, as a result, the rules would skew IDR results in favor of plans and issuers. On February 23, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (District Court) issued a memorandum opinion and order that vacated portions of the October 2021 interim final rules governing aspects of the Federal IDR process related to non-air ambulance qualified IDR items or services including: (1) the definition of “material difference;” (2) the requirement that a certified IDR entity must select the offer closest to the QPA unless the certified IDR entity determines that credible information submitted by either party under 26 CFR 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(i), 29 CFR 2590.716-8(c)(4)(i), and 45 CFR 149.510(c)(4)(i) clearly demonstrates that the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate for non-air ambulance qualified IDR items or services, or if the offers are equally distant from the QPA but in opposing directions; (3) the requirement that the certified IDR entity may only consider the additional information submitted by either party to the extent that the credible information related to the circumstances under 26 CFR 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(i), 29 CFR 2590.716-8(c)(4)(i), and 45 CFR 149.510(c)(4)(i) clearly demonstrates that the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate for non-air ambulance qualified IDR items or services; (4) the dispute resolution examples; and (5) the requirement that, if the certified IDR entity does not choose the offer closest to the QPA, the certified IDR entity's written decision must include an explanation of the credible information that the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the QPA was materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate, based on the factors certified IDR entities are permitted to consider with respect to the qualified IDR item or service.
On April 27, 2022, LifeNet, Inc., a provider of air ambulance services, filed a lawsuit against the Departments and OPM seeking the vacatur of additional provisions of the October 2021 interim final rules applicable to air ambulance services. In particular, LifeNet alleged that the requirement codified in the last sentence of 26 CFR 54.9817-2T(b)(2), 29 CFR 2590.717-2(b)(2), and 45 CFR
As discussed in more detail later in this preamble, upon review of the comments the Departments received on the information that must be shared about the QPA when a service is downcoded and with respect to the Federal IDR process, and in light of the District Court's memorandum opinions and orders in
This rulemaking is purposefully narrow in scope and is intended to address only certain issues critical to the implementation and effective operation of the Federal IDR process. The Departments intend to finalize the remaining provisions of the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules after further consideration of comments.
As described earlier in this preamble, the July 2021 interim final rules require plans and issuers to make certain disclosures with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment. When the QPA serves as the recognized amount, or as the amount upon which cost sharing is based with respect to air ambulance services, plans and issuers must disclose the QPA and certain information related to the QPA for the item or service involved, as well as certain additional information, upon request of the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services for each item or service involved.
As stated in the preamble to the July 2021 interim final rules, the Departments seek to ensure transparent and meaningful disclosure of information relating to the calculation of the QPA for providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services, while at the same time minimizing administrative burdens on health plans and issuers and on the Federal IDR process. The Departments sought to balance those competing interests by, on the one hand, requiring plans and issuers to make certain disclosures with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment and to provide certain additional information upon request by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services and, on the other hand, avoiding more wide-reaching disclosure requirements that could add to the costs and burdens of adjudicating claims subject to the surprise billing protections in the No Surprises Act.
After review of the comments submitted on the July 2021 interim final rules regarding downcoding and on the clarification in the preamble to the October 2021 interim final rules stating that, under the July 2021 interim final rules, a plan or issuer may calculate the QPA using a downcoded service code, including the comments suggesting how the disclosure requirements could be modified in light of this clarification, the Departments have concluded that additional disclosure of information about the QPA is appropriate.
Specifically, the Departments are of the view that additional information would be helpful in cases in which the plan or issuer has downcoded the billed claim to ensure that providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services receive the relevant information from a plan or issuer that is needed to engage in a productive open negotiation period. Without information on what the QPA would have been had the claim not been downcoded, the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services may be at a disadvantage compared to the plan or issuer. In cases in which the plan or issuer has downcoded the billed claim and asserts that the QPA that corresponds with the downcoded claim is the correct total payment amount, it is of particular importance that the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services knows that the item or service in question has been downcoded and has information regarding both the QPA for the downcoded claim and the amount that would have been the QPA had the service code or modifier not been downcoded. In the Departments' view, this information may be critical to the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services in developing an offer or submitting information if it believes that the QPA calculated by the plan or issuer does not best represent the value of the item or service provided.
Furthermore, the requirement to disclose this additional information will increase transparency by ensuring that the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services has sufficient information about the QPA to submit an informed offer, including how it relates to the billed claim. This increased transparency will aid in the open negotiation process by helping providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services to understand how the plan or issuer arrived at the relevant QPA in relation to the billed claim. This increased transparency will inform the provider's, facility's, or provider of air ambulance services' decision whether to initiate open negotiation and the Federal IDR process, as well as its determination of the amount that it submits as its offer.
Therefore, the Departments are issuing these final rules to add a definition for the term “downcode” to 26 CFR 54.9816-6, 29 CFR 2590.716-6, and 45 CFR 149.140; and final rules under 26 CFR 54.9816-6(d), 29 CFR 2590.716-6(d), and 45 CFR 149.140(d) to require additional information about the QPA that must be provided with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment, without a provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services having to make a request for this information, in cases in which the plan or issuer has downcoded the billed claim. Although “downcoding” is being defined for the first time in these final rules, the concept was reflected in both sets of interim final rules. Though neither set of interim final rules specifically defines a term for this practice, the interim final rules described the practice and explained that it was permissible under certain circumstances. See 86 FR 55997-98 n.35 (clarification in October 2021 interim final rules regarding requirements of July 2021 interim final rules). Indeed, as described previously, the Departments received several comments in response to the July 2021 interim final rules and the October 2021 interim final rules requesting that the disclosures that must be provided with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment include additional information about how the QPA was calculated to ensure that providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services have sufficient information when the Federal IDR process is used for a payment determination. For example, commenters requested that plans and issuers be required, without a request, to provide information on the number of contracts and the geographic region used to calculate the QPA, whether the QPA was calculated based on a downcoded billed claim, information about the use of modifiers in calculating the QPA, the types of specialties and subspecialties that have contracted rates included in the data set used to determine the QPA, and whether bonuses and supplemental payments were paid to in-network providers.
These final rules define the term “downcode,” as described in the preamble to the October 2021 interim final rules, to mean the alteration by a plan or issuer of a service code to another service code, or the alteration, addition, or removal by a plan or issuer of a modifier, if the changed code or modifier is associated with a lower QPA than the service code or modifier billed by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services.
These final rules also specify that, if a QPA is based on a downcoded service code or modifier, in addition to the information already required to be provided with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment, a plan or issuer must provide a statement that the service code or modifier billed by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services was downcoded; an explanation of why the claim was downcoded, including a description of which service codes were altered, if any, and which modifiers were altered, added, or removed, if any; and the amount that would have been the QPA had the service code or modifier not been downcoded.
The Departments are continuing to consider comments on the July 2021 interim final rules about whether additional disclosures related to the QPA calculation methodology should be required to be provided with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment, or upon request. The Departments note that the statute places the responsibility for monitoring the accuracy of plans' and issuers' QPA calculation methodologies with the Departments (and applicable state authorities) by requiring audits of plans' and issuers' QPA calculation methodologies,
The October 2021 interim final rules provide that, not later than 30 business days after the selection of the certified IDR entity, the certified IDR entity must select one of the offers submitted by the plan or issuer or the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services as the out-of-network rate for the qualified IDR item or service. In determining which offer to select, the October 2021 interim final rules provided, prior to
As stated earlier in this preamble, on February 23, 2022 and July 26, 2022, the District Court in
The District Court in
The Departments note that, in all cases, the QPA, which is generally based on the median contracted rate for a qualified IDR item or service, will be relevant to a payment determination, as it represents the typical payment amount that a plan or issuer that is a party to a payment determination will pay in-network providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services for that particular qualified IDR item or service. The Departments also note that, to the extent the QPA is calculated in a manner that is consistent with the detailed rules issued under the July 2021 interim final rules, and is communicated in a way that satisfies the applicable disclosure requirements, the QPA will meet the credibility requirement that applies to the additional information and circumstances set forth in these final rules.
In light of the
Congress granted the Departments statutory authority to “establish by regulation one independent dispute resolution process” under which certified IDR entities determine the amount of payment for an out-of-network item or service.
As explained later in this preamble, the Departments are of the view that it is appropriate to exercise their authority under this provision, and that it is in accordance with these statutory provisions, to adopt a Federal IDR process that encourages a consistent methodology for evaluation of information when making a payment determination. The Departments are of the view that there is value in ensuring that all certified IDR entities approach payment determinations in a similar manner, which will promote consistency and predictability in the process, thereby lowering administrative costs and encouraging consistency in appropriate payments for out-of-network services.
As commenters noted, there may be instances in which the QPA would not adequately account for one or more of the additional factors. The Departments note that these final rules do not require certified IDR entities to default to the offer closest to the QPA or to apply a presumption in favor of that offer. The Departments are of the view that it will often be the case that the QPA represents an appropriate out-of-network rate, as the QPA is largely informed by similar information to what would be provided as information in support of the additional statutory circumstances. Nonetheless, the Departments acknowledge that the additional factors may be relevant in determining the appropriate out-of-network rate, because the QPA may not account for information specific to a particular item or service. Therefore, these final rules do not require the certified IDR entity to select the offer closest to the QPA. Rather, these final rules specify that certified IDR entities should select the offer that best represents the value of the item or service under dispute after considering the QPA and all permissible information submitted by the parties.
Accordingly, in determining which offer to select during the Federal IDR process under these final rules, the certified IDR entity must consider the QPA for the applicable year for the same or similar item or service and then must consider all additional information submitted by a party to determine which offer best reflects the appropriate out-of-network rate, provided that the information relates to the party's offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination (and does not include information that the certified IDR entity is prohibited from considering in making the payment determination under section 9816(c)(5)(D) of the Code, section 716(c)(5)(D) of ERISA, and section 2799A-1(c)(5)(D) of the PHS Act).
For non-air ambulance items and services, the additional information to be considered includes information related to the following factors:
1. the level of training, experience, and quality and outcomes measurements of the provider or facility that furnished the qualified IDR item or service (such as those endorsed by the consensus-based entity authorized in section 1890 of the Social Security Act);
2. the market share held by the provider or facility or that of the plan or issuer in the geographic region in which the qualified IDR item or service was provided;
3. the acuity of the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee receiving the qualified IDR item or service, or the complexity of furnishing the qualified IDR item or service to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee;
4. the teaching status, case mix, and scope of services of the facility that furnished the qualified IDR item or service, if applicable; and
5. the demonstration of good faith efforts (or lack thereof) made by the provider or facility or the plan or issuer to enter into network agreements with each other, and, if applicable, contracted rates between the provider or facility, as applicable, and the plan or issuer, as applicable, during the previous 4 plan years.
Under these final rules, the certified IDR entity must also consider information related to the offer provided in response to a request from the certified IDR entity under 26 CFR 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(i)(A)(
When considering the additional information under 26 CFR 54.9816-8(c)(4)(iii), 29 CFR 2590.716-8(c)(4)(iii), and 45 CFR 149.510(c)(4)(iii), the certified IDR entity should evaluate the information and should not give weight to that information if it is already accounted for by any of the other information submitted by the parties. The certified IDR entity should consider whether the additional information is already accounted for in the QPA and should not give weight to information related to a factor if the certified IDR entity determines the information was already accounted for in the calculation of the QPA, to avoid weighting the same information twice. In addition, if the parties submit information related to more than one of the additional factors, the certified IDR entity should also consider whether the information submitted regarding those factors is already accounted for by information submitted relating to other credible information submitted to the certified IDR entity in relation to another factor and, if so, should not weigh this information more than once.
Numerous comments received on the October 2021 interim final rules highlighted that, in many cases, certain factors, such as patient acuity or the complexity of furnishing the qualified IDR item or service to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee, will already be accounted for in the calculation of the QPA and should therefore not receive additional weight. For example, because the plan or issuer is required to calculate the QPA using median contracted rates for service codes, as well as modifiers (if applicable), and because service codes and modifiers in many cases reflect patient acuity and the complexity of the service provided, these factors will often already be reflected in the QPA.
Commenters also acknowledged that there could be instances in which the QPA would not adequately account for the acuity of the patient or complexity of the service: for example, if the complexity of a case is an outlier such that the time or intensity of care exceeds what is typical for a service code. A certified IDR entity may also conclude that the QPA does not already account for patient acuity or the complexity of furnishing the qualified IDR item or service in instances where the parties disagree on what service code or modifier accurately describes the qualified IDR item or service, such as when a plan or issuer has downcoded a claim and the QPA is based on the
The Departments agree with the commenters that, in many cases, the additional factors for the certified IDR entity to consider other than the QPA will already be reflected in the QPA. The QPA is generally calculated to include characteristics that affect costs, including medical specialty, geographic region, and patient acuity and case severity, all captured in different billing codes or the QPA calculation methodology.
These final rules also include examples to illustrate the consideration of factors when making a payment determination, including whether and how to give weight to additional information submitted by a party. Each example assumes that the Federal IDR process applies for purposes of determining the out-of-network rate, that both parties have submitted the information parties are required to submit as part of the Federal IDR process, including the applicable QPA(s), and the submitted information does not include information on the prohibited factors.
In the first new example, a level 1 trauma center that is a nonparticipating emergency facility submits an offer that is higher than the QPA. Along with the offer, the nonparticipating emergency facility submits additional written information showing that the scope of services available at the nonparticipating emergency facility was critical to the delivery of care for the qualified IDR item or service provided, given the particular patient's acuity, and the information is determined to be credible by the certified IDR entity. The nonparticipating emergency facility also submits information showing that the contracted rates used to calculate the QPA were based on a level of service that is typical in cases in which the services are delivered by a facility that is not a level 1 trauma center and that does not have the capability to provide the scope of services provided by a level 1 trauma center. This information is also determined to be credible by the certified IDR entity. The issuer submits an offer equal to the QPA. No additional information is submitted by either party. The certified IDR entity determines that the information submitted by the nonparticipating emergency facility relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination. If the certified IDR entity determines that it is appropriate to give weight to the additional credible information submitted by the nonparticipating emergency facility and that this information demonstrates that the facility's offer best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service, the certified IDR entity should select the facility's offer.
In the second new example, a nonparticipating provider submits an offer that is higher than the QPA. Along with the offer, the nonparticipating provider submits additional written information regarding the level of training and experience of the provider, and the information is determined to be credible by the certified IDR entity, but the certified IDR entity finds that the provider does not demonstrate that the level of training and experience relates to the offer for the appropriate payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination (for example, the information does not show that the level of training and experience was necessary to provide the qualified IDR service or that the training or experience made an impact on the care that was provided). The nonparticipating provider does not submit any additional information. The issuer submits an amount equal to the QPA as its offer, with no additional information. Even if the certified IDR entity determines that the additional information regarding the level of training and experience is credible, if the certified IDR entity determines that the information does not relate to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR service that is the subject of the payment determination, the certified IDR entity should not give weight to the additional information. In the absence of any other credible information that relates to a party's offer, the certified IDR entity should select the issuer's offer as the offer that best represents the value of the qualified IDR service.
In the third new example, in connection with an emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, a nonparticipating provider submits an offer that is higher than the QPA. Along with the offer, the nonparticipating provider submits additional written information showing that the acuity of the patient's condition and the complexity of the qualified IDR service required the taking of a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision making of high complexity, and the information is determined to be credible by the certified IDR entity. The issuer submits an offer equal to the QPA for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99285, which is the CPT code for an emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient requiring a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision making of high complexity. The issuer also submits additional written information showing that this CPT code accounts for the acuity of the patient's condition, and the information is determined to be credible by the certified IDR entity. The certified IDR entity determines that this information relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination. Neither party submits any additional information. If the certified IDR entity determines the information on the acuity of the patient and complexity of the service is already accounted for in the calculation of the QPA, the certified IDR entity should not
In the fourth new example, the issuer submits an offer that is higher than the QPA and that is equal to the nonparticipating emergency facility's prior contracted rate (adjusted for inflation) with the issuer for the previous year for the qualified IDR service. Although the facility is not participating in the issuer's network this year, it was a participating facility in the issuer's network in the previous 4 plan years. Along with the offer, the issuer submits additional written information showing that the contracted rates between the nonparticipating facility and the issuer during the previous 4 plan years were higher than the QPA, and that these prior contracted rates took into account the case mix and scope of services typically furnished at the facility. The certified IDR entity determines that the information is credible and that it relates to the offer submitted by the facility for the payment amount for the qualified IDR service that is the subject of the payment determination. The nonparticipating emergency facility submits an offer that is higher than both the QPA and the prior contracted rate (adjusted for inflation) and submits additional written information intending to show that the case mix and scope of services available at the facility that furnished the qualified IDR service were integral to the services provided. The certified IDR entity determines this information is credible and relates to the offer submitted by the facility for the payment amount for the qualified IDR service that is the subject of the payment determination. If the certified IDR entity determines that the information submitted by the facility regarding the case mix and scope of services available at the facility includes information that is also accounted for in the information that the issuer submitted regarding prior contracted rates, then that same information that has been submitted twice should be weighted only once by the certified IDR entity. The certified IDR entity also should not give weight to the same information provided by the nonparticipating emergency facility in relation to any other factor. If the certified IDR entity determines that the issuer's offer best represents the value of the qualified IDR service, the certified IDR entity should select the issuer's offer.
In the fifth new example, regarding a qualified IDR service for which the issuer downcoded the service code that the provider billed, the issuer submits an offer equal to the QPA (which was calculated using the downcoded service code). The issuer also submits the additional written information that it was required to disclose to the nonparticipating provider at the time of the initial payment. The certified IDR entity determines the additional information to be credible and that it relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR service that is the subject of the payment determination. The nonparticipating provider submits an offer equal to the amount that would have been the QPA had the service code not been downcoded. The nonparticipating provider submits additional written information that includes the same documentation provided by the issuer, as well as information that explains why the billed service code was more appropriate than the downcoded service code, as evidence that the provider's offer best represents the value of the service furnished, given its complexity. Neither party submits any additional information. The certified IDR entity determines that the information submitted by the provider is credible and that it is related to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR service that is the subject of the payment determination. If the certified IDR entity determines that it is appropriate to give weight to the additional credible information submitted by the provider and that this information demonstrates that the provider's offer best represents the value of the qualified IDR service, the certified IDR entity should select the provider's offer.
The Departments note that the statute and the October 2021 interim final rules continue to provide that when making a payment determination, a certified IDR entity must not consider information on the prohibited factors, such as the usual and customary charges (including payment or reimbursement rates expressed as a proportion of usual and customary charges); the amount that would have been billed by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services with respect to the qualified IDR item or service had the balance billing provisions of 45 CFR 149.410, 149.420, and 149.440 (as applicable) not applied; or the payment or reimbursement rate for items and services furnished by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services payable by a public payor.
The Departments are committed to establishing a fair, cost-effective, and reasonable IDR payment determination process that does not have an inflationary impact on health care costs. To that end, the Departments will monitor the effects of these payment determination requirements and make appropriate adjustments as necessary to achieve the intended goals articulated in this preamble.
As discussed in section I.C of this preamble, the process for a certified IDR entity to select an offer in a dispute
As for non-air ambulance items and services, these final rules provide that in determining which offer to select in a dispute related to air ambulance services, the certified IDR entity must consider certain additional information submitted by a party. Also, for non-air ambulance items and services, these final rules for air ambulance services provide that the certified IDR entity must consider the QPA for the applicable year for the same or similar service and then consider all additional permissible information to determine the appropriate out-of-network rate. For air ambulance services, this information includes information related to the following factors:
1. quality and outcomes measurements of the provider that furnished the services;
2. the acuity of the condition of the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee receiving the service, or the complexity of furnishing the service to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee;
3. training, experience, and quality of the medical personnel that furnished the air ambulance service;
4. ambulance vehicle type, including the clinical capability level of the vehicle;
5. population density of the point of pick-up; and
6. demonstrations of good faith efforts (or lack thereof) by the disputing parties to enter into network agreements with each other, as well as, if applicable, contracted rates between the parties during the previous 4 plan years.
Additionally, as with non-air ambulance disputes, the certified IDR entity must also consider information related to the offer provided in a response to the certified IDR entity's request under 26 CFR 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(i)(A)(
As with non-air ambulance disputes, the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether each piece of submitted information is credible, relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR service submitted by either party, and does not include information on factors described in 26 CFR 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(v), 29 CFR 2590.716-8(c)(4)(v), or 45 CFR 149.510(c)(4)(v) (regarding prohibited considerations). When considering the additional information listed above, the certified IDR entity should not give weight to the information to the extent it is not credible, does not relate to either party's offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR service, or is included in the QPA calculation or other credible information. The Departments note that these final rules do not require certified IDR entities to default to the offer closest to the QPA or to apply a presumption in favor of that offer. Rather, these final rules specify that certified IDR entities should select the offer that best represents the value of the air ambulance service under dispute after considering the QPA and all permissible information submitted by the parties.
Under section 9816(c)(7) of the Code, section 716(c)(7) of ERISA, and section 2799A-1(c)(7) of the PHS Act, the Departments are required to publish a variety of information relating to the Federal IDR process, including the number of times a payment amount determined or agreed to under this process exceeds the QPA; the amount of each offer submitted in the Federal IDR process expressed as a percentage of the QPA; and any other information specified by the Departments. The statute also instructs certified IDR entities to submit to the Departments such information as the Departments determine necessary to carry out the provisions of section 9816(c) of the Code, section 716(c) of ERISA, and section 2799A-1(c) of the PHS Act, which include these reporting requirements as well as the Departments' obligations to establish and oversee the Federal IDR process. The Departments have determined it is necessary under this provision to require certified IDR entities to submit certain information, including a written statement of the certified IDR entity's reasons for a particular determination of an out-of-network rate.
Under the October 2021 interim final rules, the certified IDR entity must explain its payment determination and the underlying rationale in a written decision submitted to the parties and the Departments, in a form and manner specified by the Departments. The October 2021 interim final rules also required the certified IDR entity to include in its written decision an explanation of the credible information that the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the QPA was materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate if the certified IDR entity did not choose the offer closest to the QPA.
As stated earlier in this preamble, on February 23, 2022, the District Court in
The Departments are finalizing standards for the written decision that are intended to achieve transparency and consistency in the Federal IDR process. Accordingly, similar to the October 2021 interim final rules these final rules require that the certified IDR entity explain in all cases its determination in a written decision provided to the parties and the Departments, in a form and manner specified by the Departments in separate guidance. Additionally, these final rules
Finally, the Departments are also including two technical corrections to address a regulatory cross-references in the provisions that set forth the requirements for the certified IDR entity to include a rationale for its written decision for both air ambulance and non-air ambulance qualified IDR items and services in monthly reporting to the Departments, and to clarify that the certified IDR entity should report to the Departments the extent to which the decision relied on 26 CFR 54.9816-8(c)(4)(iii)(B)-(D), 29 CFR 2590.716-8(c)(4)(iii)(B)-(D), and 45 CFR 149.510(c)(4)(iii)(B)-(D). This requirement aligns the reporting requirement with the requirement for the written decision, and with the intent of the October 2021 interim final rules to gather such information.
These rules finalize certain provisions of the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules and address the decisions in
The final rules that implement the requirements related to the additional information that must be provided with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment if the QPA is based on a downcoded service code or modifier are applicable with respect to items or services furnished on or after October 25, 2022, for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after January 1, 2022.
With respect to the additional information that must be provided with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment if a QPA is based on a downcoded service code or modifier, the Departments recognize that plans and issuers often provide these notices through an automated or other streamlined system for efficiency and that plans and issuers may need additional time to update their operating systems to amend the notices that are currently generated to satisfy the QPA disclosure requirements under the July 2021 interim final rules. Plans and issuers may use reasonable methods to provide this additional disclosure with the initial payment or notice of denial of payment while plan or issuer systems and procedures are updated to provide the additional notice in a more streamlined and automated manner. Even when using other reasonable methods, plans and issuers must provide the required information starting on the date these final rules are applicable to the relevant plan or policy and in accordance with the timeframes specified in the July 2021 interim final rules. The Departments expect that plans and issuers will work to make sure that systems are updated in a timely fashion, and the Departments may provide additional guidance, as warranted.
For requirements that finalize certain provisions of the October 2021 interim final rules, the final rules addressing the payment determination standards for certified IDR entities, written decisions, and reporting are applicable with respect to items or services provided or furnished on or after October 25, 2022, for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after January 1, 2022. This approach will ensure uniformity and predictability in standards for qualified IDR items and services (including between non-air ambulance items and services and air ambulance services, to the extent applicable), and will allow time for the Departments to provide updated guidance to certified IDR entities and stakeholders.
If any provision in this rulemaking is held to be invalid or unenforceable facially, or as applied to any person, plaintiff, or circumstance, the provision shall be severable from the remainder of this rulemaking, and shall not affect the remainder thereof, and the invalidation of any specific application of a provision shall not affect the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances.
The Departments have examined the effects of these final rules as required by Executive Order 12866,
Executive Orders 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Under Executive Order 12866, “significant” regulatory actions are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of the Executive order defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
On December 27, 2020, the CAA, which includes the No Surprises Act, was enacted.
On July 13, 2021, the Departments published the July 2021 interim final rules.
On October 7, 2021, the Departments published the October 2021 interim final rules.
On February 23, 2022, the District Court in
In response to the decisions in
As described earlier in this preamble, the July 2021 interim final rules require plans and issuers to make certain disclosures with each initial payment or notice of denial of payment in cases in which the recognized amount with respect to an item or service furnished by a nonparticipating provider or nonparticipating emergency facility, or the amount upon which cost sharing is based for air ambulance services furnished by a nonparticipating provider of air ambulance services, is the QPA. After review of the comments on the July 2021 interim final rules and October 2021 interim final rules, the Departments are finalizing parts of the July 2021 interim final rules to add a new definition and make changes to require additional information about the QPA that is provided by a plan or issuer with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment in certain cases. These disclosures are required in cases in which the recognized amount with respect to an item or service furnished by a nonparticipating provider or nonparticipating emergency facility, or the amount upon which cost sharing is based for air ambulance services furnished by a nonparticipating provider of air ambulance services, is the QPA. Specifically, these final rules provide a definition of the term “downcode” to mean the alteration by a plan or issuer of a service code to another service code, or the alteration, addition, or removal by a plan or issuer of a modifier, if the changed code or modifier is associated with a lower QPA than the service code or modifier billed by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services. These final rules also specify that when a QPA is calculated based on a downcoded service code or modifier, in addition to the information already required to be provided with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment under the July 2021 interim final rules, a plan or issuer must provide a statement that the claim was downcoded; an explanation of why the claim was downcoded, including a description of which service codes were altered, if applicable, and a description of which modifiers were altered, added, or removed, if applicable; and the amount that would have been the QPA had the service code or modifier not been downcoded. The Departments are of the view that this additional disclosure of information about the QPA will be helpful to ensure that providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services receive the information regarding the QPA that may assist in their meaningful participation in open negotiation and in the Federal IDR process in all payment disputes that involve qualified items or services that have been subject to downcoding. In particular, in cases in which the plan or issuer has downcoded the billed claim, it is of particular importance that the
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the October 2021 interim final rules provided that, not later than 30 business days after the selection of the certified IDR entity, the certified IDR entity must select one of the offers submitted by the plan or issuer or the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services to be the out-of-network rate for the qualified IDR item or service. In determining which offer to select, the October 2021 interim final rules provided that the certified IDR entity must select the offer closest to the QPA unless the certified IDR entity were to determine that additional permissible information demonstrated that the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate, or if the offers are equally distant from the QPA but in opposing directions. A key goal in facilitating consistency in the Federal IDR process through the October 2021 interim final rules was to ensure a level of predictability in outcomes in the Federal IDR process. In the Departments' view, greater predictability in the Federal IDR process would encourage parties to settle disputes through open negotiation or earlier through the offer and acceptance of an adequate initial payment, which would increase efficiencies in how disputes are handled and ultimately lead to lower administrative costs associated with health care. As articulated earlier in this preamble, in light of the
For non-air ambulance items and services, this information includes information related to the following factors: (1) the level of training, experience, and quality and outcomes measurements of the provider or facility that furnished the qualified IDR item or service (such as those endorsed by the consensus-based entity authorized in section 1890 of the Social Security Act); (2) the market share held by the provider or facility or that of the plan or issuer in the geographic region in which the qualified IDR item or service was provided; (3) the acuity of the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee receiving the qualified IDR item or service, or the complexity of furnishing the qualified IDR item or service to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee; (4) the teaching status, case mix, and scope of services of the facility that furnished the qualified IDR item or service, if applicable; and (5) demonstration of good faith efforts (or lack thereof) made by the provider or facility or the plan or issuer to enter into network agreements with each other, and, if applicable, contracted rates between the provider or facility, as applicable, and the plan or issuer, as applicable, during the previous 4 plan years.
Under these final rules, the certified IDR entity must also consider information related to the offer provided in a response to a request from the certified IDR entity. The certified IDR entity must also consider additional information submitted by a party, provided the information relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination and does not include information that the certified IDR entity is prohibited from weighing in making the payment determination under section 9816(c)(5)(D) of the Code, section 716(c)(5)(D) of ERISA, and section 2799A-1(c)(5)(D) of the PHS Act. In considering either form of information, the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether the information is credible and should not give weight to information that is not credible.
When considering the additional credible information under 26 CFR 54.9816-8(c)(4)(iii), 29 CFR 2590.716-8(c)(4)(iii), and 45 CFR 149.510(c)(4)(iii), the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether the information is already accounted for by any of the other credible information submitted by the parties. Because the certified IDR entity must consider the QPA, the certified IDR entity should always consider whether the additional credible information is already accounted for by the QPA and should avoid giving weight to information related to a factor if the certified IDR entity determines the information was already accounted for in the calculation of the QPA, to avoid weighting the same information twice. In addition, if the parties submit credible information related to more than one of the additional factors, the certified IDR entity should also consider whether the information submitted regarding those factors is already accounted for by information submitted relating to other credible information already before the certified IDR entity in relation to another factor and, if so, should not weigh the information more than once.
Regarding air ambulance services, these final rules state that the certified IDR entity must consider the QPA for the applicable year for the same or similar service and then consider all additional permissible information to determine the appropriate out-of-network rate. In considering this additional information, the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether information that is offered is credible and should not give weight to information that is not credible. For air ambulance services, this information includes information related to the following factors: (1) quality and outcomes measurements of the provider that furnished the air ambulance services; (2) the acuity of the condition of the participant or beneficiary receiving the air ambulance service, or the complexity of furnishing the service to the participant or beneficiary; (3) training, experience, and quality of the medical personnel that furnished the air ambulance services; (4) ambulance vehicle type, including the clinical capability level of the vehicle; (5) population density of the point of pick-
After the certified IDR entity has reviewed and selected the offer it determines best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service as the out-of-network rate, the certified IDR entity must explain its determination in a written decision submitted to the parties and the Departments, in a form and manner specified by the Departments. These final rules require that the certified IDR entity's written decision must include an explanation of what information the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the offer selected as the out-of-network rate is the offer that best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service, including the weight given to the QPA and any additional credible information submitted in accordance with these final rules. If the certified IDR entity relies on any additional information in selecting an offer, the written decision must include an explanation of why the certified IDR entity concluded that this information was not already reflected in the QPA.
Plans, issuers, third-party administrators (TPAs), Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program carriers, health care providers, facilities, providers of air ambulance services, and certified IDR entities will incur costs to comply with the requirements in these final rules. However, these final rules will help ensure that the payment determination in the Federal IDR process is a more consistent process for providers, facilities, providers of air ambulance services, plans, and issuers. These final rules will improve transparency in the Federal IDR process. This increased transparency will aid in the open negotiation process, the decision whether to initiate the Federal IDR process, and the determination of the amount a provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services submits as an offer. Therefore, the Departments have determined the benefits of these final rules justify the costs.
This regulatory action finalizes certain provisions in the July 2021 interim final rules and the October 2021 interim final rules, including changes to remove the language vacated by the District Court in
To avoid repeating the analysis of the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules, only a short summary of the benefits and costs is provided, and readers are directed to the analysis in the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules for more detail. Numbers in this analysis may not match numbers in the analysis for the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules because the estimates have been updated with the most current data. However, the methodology remains the same, except for the calculation of the burden to prepare the certified IDR entity's written decision for payment determinations, as explained later in this section. The Departments also discuss the impacts of changes made by these final rules is this section.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-4, Table 1 depicts an accounting statement summarizing the Departments' assessment of the benefits, costs, and transfers associated with this regulatory action. The Departments are unable to quantify all benefits, costs, and transfers associated with this regulatory action, but have sought, where possible, to describe these non-quantified impacts. The effects in Table 1 reflect non-quantified impacts and estimated direct monetary costs resulting from the provisions of these final rules.
These final rules will affect health care providers, health care facilities, providers of air ambulance services, group health plans, issuers, TPAs, FEHB carriers, and certified IDR entities.
Based on data from 2020, CMS estimated that there were 1,477 issuers in the U.S. health insurance market, of which 1,212 served the individual market, 6 served the student health insurance market, 623 served the small group market, and 784 served the large group market.
In 2019, 183 million individuals had employer-sponsored coverage and 33.2 million had other private insurance, including individual market insurance.
In the October 2021 interim final rules, the Departments estimated that there are 16,992 emergency and other health care facilities, including 6,090 hospitals,
In the October 2021 interim final rules, the Departments also estimated that in 2018, the current year for which data are available, there were 1,114 air ambulance bases in the United States.
Furthermore, in the October 2021 interim final rules, the Departments estimated that 140,270 physicians, on average, bill on an out-of-network basis and will be affected by these final rules.
Finally, there are currently 11 certified IDR entities that will be affected by these final rules.
These final rules will require plans and issuers to provide additional information about the QPA with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment in cases involving downcoding, without the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services having to ask for this information. These final rules will be helpful to the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services in developing an offer or submitting information if it believes that the QPA
In addition, these final rules require that certified IDR entities must consider the QPA and then must consider all additional permissible information submitted by a party to determine which offer best reflects the appropriate out-of-network rate, provided the information relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination and does not include information that the certified IDR entity is prohibited from weighing in making the payment determination under section 9816(c)(5)(D) of the Code, section 716(c)(5)(D) of ERISA, and section 2799A-1(c)(5)(D) of the PHS Act. In considering this additional information, the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether information that is offered is credible and should not give weight to information that is not credible. The appropriate out-of-network rate must be the offer that the certified IDR entity determines best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service.
Because the certified IDR entity must consider the QPA, the certified IDR entity should always consider whether the additional credible information is already accounted for by the QPA and should not give weight to information related to a factor if the certified IDR entity determines the information was already accounted for in the calculation of the QPA, to avoid weighting the same information twice. In addition, if the parties submit credible information related to more than one of the additional factors, the certified IDR entity should also consider whether the information submitted regarding each of those factors is already accounted for by information submitted relating to other credible information already before the certified IDR entity in relation to another factor and, if so, should not weigh such information more than once. These final rules will help ensure that the payment determination in the Federal IDR process is a consistent process for providers, facilities, providers of air ambulance services, plans, and issuers.
The certified IDR entity's written decision must include an explanation of what information the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the offer selected as the out-of-network rate is the offer that best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service, including the weight given to the QPA and any additional credible information submitted in accordance with these final rules. If the certified IDR entity relies on any additional information in selecting an offer, the written decision must include an explanation of why the certified IDR entity concluded that this information was not already reflected in the qualifying payment amount. These final rules will help ensure that certified IDR entities carefully evaluate all credible non-duplicative information. These final rules will also promote transparency with respect to the certified IDR entity's payment determination.
This regulatory action seeks to minimize costs to providers, facilities, providers of air ambulance services, plans, issuers, TPAs, and certified IDR entities.
As explained in the analysis provided in the October 2021 interim final rules, the Departments estimate that there will be approximately 17,435 claims submitted to the Federal IDR process each year.
After the selected certified IDR entity has reviewed the offers, the certified IDR entity must notify the provider or facility and the plan, issuer, or FEHB carrier and the Departments of the payment determination and the reason for such determination, in a form and manner specified by the Departments.
In addition to the information already required to be provided with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment under the July 2021 interim final rules, including the QPA, these final rules require that a plan or issuer must provide, if applicable, an acknowledgement if all or any portion of the claim was downcoded; an explanation of why the claim was downcoded, including a description of which service codes were altered, if any, and a description of any modifiers that were altered, added, or removed, if any; and the amount that would have been the QPA had the service code or modifier not been downcoded. In the July 2021 interim final rules, the Departments estimated that plans and issuers will be required to provide documents related to the QPA along with the initial payment or notice of denial of payment for approximately 5,068,512 claims annually from nonparticipating providers or facilities.
In total, the Departments estimate that certified IDR entities, TPAs, and issuers will incur costs of approximately $5.5 million annually to provide, as applicable, payment determination notifications and the additional QPA information required under these rules.
As explained in the October 2021 interim final rules, the Departments assume that 10 percent of out-of-network claims for air ambulance services will be submitted to the Federal IDR process,
After the certified IDR entity has reviewed and selected the offer, the certified IDR entity must notify the provider of air ambulance services and the plan, issuer, or FEHB carrier and the Departments of the payment determination and include the written decision explaining such determination.
Similar to these final rules' provisions related to the disclosure of downcoded claims for nonparticipating providers and nonparticipating emergency facilities, these final rules require that a plan or issuer must provide, if applicable, an acknowledgement if all or any portion of the claim pertaining to air ambulance services was downcoded; an explanation of why the claim was downcoded, including a description of which service codes were altered, if any, and a description of any modifiers that were altered, added, or removed, if any; and the amount that would have been the QPA had the service code or modifier not been downcoded. The Departments estimate that plans and issuers will be required to provide these documents for approximately 49,676 claims annually from providers of air ambulance services.
In total, the Departments estimate that certified IDR entities, TPAs, and issuers will incur costs of approximately $0.4 million annually to provide payment determination notifications and the additional QPA information required under these final rules.
The Departments estimate the total annual cost associated with these final rules to be $5.9 million with $4.3 million annually attributable to the additional information related to the QPAs, $1.2 million annually attributable to the certified IDR entity's payment determination for nonparticipating provider and emergency facility claims, and $0.3 million annually attributable to the certified IDR entity's payment determination notification for nonparticipating provider of air ambulance service claims.
These final rules make no changes that impact the transfers as described in the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules.
These final rules make no changes that impact the uncertainties as described in the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules.
Section 6(a)(3)(C)(iii) of Executive Order 12866 requires an economically significant regulation, and encourages other regulations, to include an assessment of the costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonable alternatives to the planned regulation. A discussion of the regulatory alternatives is included in this section.
As described in Section I.E. of this preamble, the District Court in
The Departments considered finalizing the additional factors other than the QPA that a certified IDR entity may consider when submitted by one of the disputing parties without addressing the possibility that these factors may already have been accounted for in the QPA. Numerous comments received on the October 2021 interim final rules highlighted that in many cases, certain factors, such as patient acuity or the complexity of furnishing the qualified IDR item or service to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee, will already be accounted for in the calculation of the QPA. Commenters acknowledged, however, that there could be instances in which the QPA would not adequately account for the acuity of the patient or complexity of the service: for example, if the complexity of a case is an outlier such that the time or intensity of care exceeds what is typical for the service code. The Departments are of the view that, in many cases, factors that a certified IDR entity may consider other than the QPA will already be reflected in the QPA. The QPA is generally calculated to include characteristics that can affect costs, including medical specialty, geographic region, and patient acuity and case severity, all captured in different billing codes or aspects of the methodology that plans and issuers are required to follow in calculating the QPA. Therefore, weighting additional information that is already taken into account in the calculation of the QPA would be redundant and in the Departments' view, would result in increased administrative burden to the certified IDR entity, potentially resulting in the selection of an offer that does not best reflect the most appropriate value insofar as additional weight would be given to information related to a factor that is already accounted for in the QPA, effectively weighting that information twice. Under these final rules, certified IDR entities must consider the QPA and then must consider all additional information submitted by the parties. To help ensure that the Federal IDR process results in determinations that accurately reflect the fair value of a given item or service, the certified IDR entity should consider all additional information submitted by the parties but should not give weight to information if it is already accounted for by any of the other information submitted by the parties.
The Departments are of the view that these final rules will promote
The Departments estimate that these final rules will impose incremental annual costs of approximately $5.9 million. Over 10 years, the associated costs will be approximately $44.1 million with an annualized cost of $5.9 million, using a 7 percent discount rate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Departments solicited comments concerning the information collection requirements (ICRs) included in the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules. At the same time, the Departments also submitted ICRs to OMB, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
The Departments received comments that specifically addressed the paperwork burden analysis of the information collection requirements contained in the July 2021 and October 2021 interim final rules. The Departments reviewed these public comments in developing the paperwork burden analysis discussed here.
The changes made by these final rules affect the existing OMB control number, 1210-0169. A copy of the ICR for OMB Control Number 1210-0169 may be obtained by contacting the PRA addressee listed in the following sentence or at
The OMB will consider all written comments that they receive on or before September 26, 2022. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Group health plans, health insurance issuers, FEHB carriers, and certified IDR entities are responsible for ensuring compliance with these final rules. Accordingly, the Departments refer to costs incurred by plans, issuers, FEHB carriers, and certified IDR entities. However, it is expected that most self-insured group health plans will work with a TPA to meet the requirements of these final rules. The Departments recognize the potential that some of the largest self-insured plans may seek to meet the requirements of these final rules in-house and not use a TPA or other third party. In these cases, those plans will incur the estimated hour burden and cost directly.
These final rules add additional burdens to the ICR presented in the October 2021 interim final rules. The following discussion covers the changes being made to the ICR and the additional burden these changes impose, followed by a summary of the ICR. Copies of the ICR may be obtained by contacting the PRA addressee.
These final rules specify that where a QPA is calculated based on a downcoded service code, in addition to the information already required to be provided with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment under the July 2021 interim final rules, a plan or issuer must provide, if applicable, a statement that all or a portion of the claim was downcoded; an explanation of why the claim was downcoded, including a description of which service codes were altered, if any, and a description of any modifiers that were altered or added, if any; and the amount that would have been the QPA had the service codes or modifiers not been downcoded.
The Departments assume that TPAs will provide this information on behalf of self-insured plans. In addition, the Departments assume that issuers and TPAs will automate the process of preparing and providing this information in a format similar to an explanation of benefits as part of the system to calculate the QPA. The Departments estimate that a total of 1,477 issuers and 205 TPAs will incur a burden to comply with this provision.
In the July 2021 interim final rules, the Departments estimated that plans and issuers will be required to provide documents related to QPAs along with the initial payment or notice of denial of payment for approximately 5,068,512 claims annually from nonparticipating providers or facilities.
The Departments estimate the additional QPA information will be provided for approximately 506,851 claims from nonparticipating providers or facilities. The annual burden to prepare the required documentation and attach it to each initial payment or notice of denial of payment sent to the nonparticipating providers or facilities will be approximately 84,475 hours annually, with an associated equivalent
The Departments estimate that 17,435 claims will be submitted as part of the Federal IDR process each year.
The Departments estimate that, on average, it will take a physician and medical billing specialist 0.5 hours to prepare the notice at a composite hourly wage rate of $136.81.
The total annual cost burden for certified IDR entities to provide the payment determination notices regarding Federal IDR claims will be $1,192,641. As shown in Table 3, the Departments and OPM share jurisdiction, and it is estimated that 45 percent of the burden will be accounted for by HHS, 25 percent will be accounted for by DOL, 25 percent of the burden will be accounted for by the Department of the Treasury, and 5 percent will be accounted for by OPM. Thus, HHS will account for a cost burden of $536,689. DOL and the Department of the Treasury will each account for a cost burden of $298,160. OPM will account for a cost burden of $59,632.
The Departments estimate there will be 4,968 claims for air ambulance services submitted to the Federal IDR process each year.
The Departments estimate that, on average, it will take a physician and medical billing specialist working for the certified IDR entity 0.5 hour to prepare the notice of the certified IDR entity's determination at a composite hourly wage rate of $136.81.
The total annual cost burden for the certified IDR entities to provide the payment determination notices regarding air ambulance claims will be $339,836. As shown in Table 4, the Departments and OPM share jurisdiction, and it is estimated that 45 percent of the burden will be accounted for by HHS, 25 percent will be accounted for by DOL, 25 percent of the burden will be accounted for by the Department of the Treasury, and 5 percent will be accounted for by OPM. Thus, HHS will account for a cost burden of $152,926. DOL and the Department of the Treasury will each account for a cost burden of $84,959. OPM will account for a cost burden of $16,992.
The total annual cost burden for certified IDR entities to provide payment determination notices regarding non-air ambulance and air ambulance claims will be $1,532,477. As shown in Table 5, HHS will account for a cost burden of approximately $689,615. DOL and the Department of the Treasury will each account for a cost burden of approximately $383,119. OPM will account for a cost burden of approximately $76,624.
These paperwork burden estimates are summarized as follows:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Departments certify that these final rules would not have a significant
The Small Business Administration (SBA), pursuant to the Small Business Act,
For purposes of analysis under the RFA, the Departments consider an employee benefit plan with fewer than 100 participants to be a small entity.
As discussed in the regulatory impact analysis, these final rules will affect health insurance issuers and TPAs. In 2020, there were 205 TPAs
This estimate may overstate the actual number of small health insurance issuers that may be affected. The Departments expect that few insurance issuers underwriting comprehensive health insurance coverage fall below these size thresholds. Based on data from medical loss ratio (MLR) annual report
These final rules will also affect health care providers because the Departments assume that the cost of preparing and delivering the notice of the certified IDR entity's determination is included in the certified IDR entity fees paid by providers, facilities, providers of air ambulance services, plans, issuers, and FEHB carriers. The Departments estimate that 140,270 physicians, on average, bill on an out-of-network basis. The number of small physicians is estimated based on the SBA's size standards. The size standard applied for providers is NAICS 62111 (Offices of Physicians), for which a business with less than $14 million in receipts is considered to be small. By this standard, the Departments estimate that 45.8 percent (64,232 physicians) are considered small under the SBA's size standards.
The Departments do not have the same level of data for the air ambulance sub-sector. In 2020, the total revenue of providers of air ambulance services is estimated to be $4.2 billion with 1,114 air ambulance bases.
In addition to the information already required to be provided with an initial payment or notice of denial of payment under the July 2021 interim final rules, including the QPA, these final rules require that a plan or issuer must provide, if applicable, an acknowledgement if all or any portion of the claim was downcoded; an explanation of why the claim was
In addition, after the certified IDR entity has reviewed the offers and selected an offer, the certified IDR entity must explain its determination in a written decision submitted to the parties and the Departments, in a form and manner specified by the Departments. The certified IDR entity's written decision must include an explanation of what information the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the offer selected is the out-of-network rate that best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service. This explanation must include the weight given to the QPA and any additional non-prohibited, credible information submitted in accordance with these final rules. If the certified IDR entity relies on any additional information in selecting an offer, the written decision must include an explanation of why the certified IDR entity concluded that this information was not already reflected in the qualifying payment amount. The total estimated annual cost burden for certified IDR entities to provide payment determination notices regarding non-air ambulance Federal IDR claims is estimated to be $1.2 million and the total estimated annual cost burden for certified IDR entities to provide payment determination notices regarding air ambulance Federal IDR claims is estimated to be $0.3 million. The Departments assume for this calculation that half of the cost will fall on the providers, providers of air ambulance services, and facilities and the remaining half will fall on plans, issuers, and FEHB carriers. For more details, please refer to the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, found in section V of this preamble.
To estimate the proportion of the total costs that would fall onto small entities, the Departments assume that the proportion of costs is proportional to the industry receipts. The Departments are of the view that this assumption is reasonable because the number of providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services that receive initial and additional information about the QPA is likely to be proportional to the amount of business in which the entity is involved. Applying data from the Census Bureau of receipts by size for each industry, the Departments estimate that small issuers will incur 0.2 percent of the total costs incurred by all issuers and small providers will incur 37 percent of the total cost by all providers.
Accordingly, the Departments estimate that small issuers and TPAs will incur an annual cost of $4,330 associated with disclosing additional information about the QPA.
For the payment determination notice regarding disputes involving non-air ambulance claims, the Departments estimate that the total annual cost for all small issuers will be $1,193 and the total annual cost for small providers will be $219,446.
For the payment determination notice regarding a dispute involving air ambulance claims, the Departments estimate that the total annual cost for small issuers will be $344 and the total annual cost for all small providers of air ambulance services will be $62,530.
The number of impacted small health plans is not a significant number of plans compared to the total universe of 1.9 million small health plans. Assuming that 17,435 non-air ambulance claims and 4,968 air ambulance claims are submitted to the Federal IDR process each year, only one percent of small health plans will be impacted.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed agency rule, or a finalization of such a proposal, that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 outlines fundamental principles of federalism and requires Federal agencies to adhere to specific criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have “substantial direct effects” on the States, the relationship between the National Government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies promulgating regulations that have federalism implications must consult with State and local officials and describe the extent of their consultation and the nature of the concerns of State and local officials in the preamble to these final rules.
In the Departments' view, these final rules have federalism implications
In general, section 514 of ERISA preempts state laws to the extent that they relate to any private covered employee benefit plan, including covered group health plans, and preserves State laws that regulate insurance, banking, or securities. While ERISA prohibits States from regulating a plan as an insurance or investment company or bank, the preemption provisions of section 731 of ERISA and section 2724 of the PHS Act (implemented in 29 CFR 2590.731(a) and 45 CFR 146.143(a)) apply so that requirements of Part 7 of ERISA and title XXVII of the PHS Act (including those of the No Surprises Act) are not to be “construed to supersede any provision of State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement solely relating to health insurance issuers in connection with group health insurance coverage except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents the application of a requirement” of a Federal standard. The conference report accompanying the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) indicates that this is intended to be the “narrowest” preemption of State laws.
In compliance with the requirement of Executive Order 13132 that agencies examine closely any policies that may have federalism implications or limit the policy-making discretion of the States, the Departments engaged in efforts to consult with and work cooperatively with affected States, including participating in conference calls with and attending conferences of the NAIC and consulting with State insurance officials on a state-by-state basis. In addition, the Departments consulted with the NAIC, as required by the No Surprises Act, to establish the geographic regions to be used in the methodology for calculating the QPA as detailed in the July 2021 interim final rules.
In developing these final rules, the Departments attempted to balance the States' interests in regulating health insurance issuers, providers, and facilities with the need to ensure at least the minimum Federal consumer protections in every State. By doing so, the Departments complied with the requirements of Executive Order 13132.
Excise taxes, Health care, Health insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Continuation coverage, Disclosure, Employee benefit plans, Group health plans, Health care, Health insurance, Medical child support, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Balance billing, Health care, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surprise billing, State regulation of health insurance, Transparency in coverage.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS adopts as final the temporary regulations adding 26 CFR 54.9816-6T and 54.9817-2T, published at 86 FR 36872 (July 13, 2021), and 26 CFR 54.9816-8T, published at 86 FR 55980 (October 7, 2021), with the following changes to 26 CFR part 54:
26 U.S.C. 7805, unless otherwise noted.
(a) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6T(a) introductory text through (a)(17).
(1)-(17) [Reserved]
(18)
(b)-(c) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6T(b) and (c).
(d) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6T(d) introductory text through (d)(1)(i).
(1) [Reserved]
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) If the qualifying payment amount is based on a downcoded service code or modifier—
(A) A statement that the service code or modifier billed by the provider,
(B) An explanation of why the claim was downcoded, which must include a description of which service codes were altered, if any, and a description of which modifiers were altered, added, or removed, if any; and
(C) The amount that would have been the qualifying payment amount had the service code or modifier not been downcoded.
(iii)-(v) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6T(d)(1)(iii) through (v).
(2) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6T(d)(2).
(e)-(f) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6T(e) and (f).
(g)
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(18) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6(a)(18).
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For further guidance see § 54.9816-6(d)(1)(ii);
(a)-(b) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(a) and (b).
(c) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(c) introductory text through (c)(3).
(1)-(3) [Reserved]
(4) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(c)(4) introductory text through (c)(4)(ii) introductory text.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(A) Select as the out-of-network rate for the qualified IDR item or service one of the offers submitted under § 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(i), weighing only the considerations specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section (as applied to the information provided by the parties pursuant to § 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(i)). The certified IDR entity must select the offer that the certified IDR entity determines best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service as the out-of-network rate.
(B) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(ii)(B).
(iii)
(A) The certified IDR entity must consider the qualifying payment amount(s) for the applicable year for the same or similar item or service.
(B) The certified IDR entity must then consider information submitted by a party that relates to the following circumstances:
(
(
(
(
(
(C) The certified IDR entity must also consider information provided by a party in response to a request by the certified IDR entity under § 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(i)(A)(
(D) The certified IDR entity must also consider additional information submitted by a party that relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination and that does not include information on factors described in § 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(v).
(E) In weighing the considerations described in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section, the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether the information is credible and relates to the offer submitted by either party for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination. The certified IDR entity should not give weight to information to the extent it is not credible, it does not relate to either party's offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service, or it is already accounted for by the qualifying payment amount under paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(A) of this section or other credible information under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section.
(iv)
(A)
(
(B)
(
(C)
(
(D)
(
(E)
(
(v) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(v) through (c)(4)(vi)(A).
(vi) [Reserved]
(A) [Reserved]
(B) The certified IDR entity's written decision must include an explanation of their determination, including what information the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the offer selected as the out-of-network rate is the offer that best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service, including the weight given to the qualifying payment amount and any additional credible information under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section. If the certified IDR entity relies on information described under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section in selecting an offer, the written decision must include an explanation of why the certified IDR entity concluded that this information was not already reflected in the qualifying payment amount.
(vii)-(ix) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(c)(4)(vii) through (ix).
(d)-(e) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(d) through (e).
(f) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(f) introductory text through (f)(1)(iv).
(1) [Reserved]
(i)-(iv) [Reserved]
(v) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(f)(1)(v) introductory text through (f)(1)(v)(E).
(A)-(E) [Reserved]
(F) The rationale for the certified IDR entity's decision, including the extent to which the decision relied on the criteria in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section.
(G)-(I) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(f)(1)(v)(G) through (I).
(vi) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(f)(1)(vi).
(2) [Reserved]
(g) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8T(g).
(h)
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8(c)(4)(ii)(A).
(iii) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8(c)(4)(iii).
(iv) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8(c)(4)(iv).
(vi) * * *
(B) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8(c)(4)(vi)(B).
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(F) For further guidance see § 54.9816-8(f)(1)(v)(F);
(h)
(a) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2T(a).
(b) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2T(b) introductory text.
(1)
(2)
(i)-(vi) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2T(b)(2)(i) through (vi).
(3)
(4) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2T(b)(4) introductory text through (b)(4)(iii).
(i)-(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2T(b)(4)(iv) introductory text through (b)(4)(iv)(E).
(A)-(E) [Reserved]
(F) The rationale for the certified IDR entity's decision, including the extent to which the decision relied on the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section and § 54.9816-8(c)(4)(iii)(C) and (D).
(G)-(I) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2T(b)(4)(iv)(G) through (I).
(c)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2(b)(1).
(2) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2(b)(2).
(3) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2(b)(3).
(4) * * *
(iv) * * *
(F) For further guidance see § 54.9817-2(b)(4)(iv)(F);
(c)
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor adopts as final the interim rules adding 29 CFR 2590.716-6, published at 86 FR 36872 (July 13, 2021), and 29 CFR 2590.716-8 and 2590.717-2, published at 86 FR 55980 (October 7, 2021), with the following changes:
29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161-1168, 1169, 1181-1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a-n, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Pub. L.104-191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Pub. L. 105-200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 512(d), Pub. L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Pub. L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029; Division M, Pub. L. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130; Pub. L. 116-260 134 Stat. 1182; Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2011, 77 FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(18)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If the qualifying payment amount is based on a downcoded service code or modifier—
(A) A statement that the service code or modifier billed by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services was downcoded;
(B) An explanation of why the claim was downcoded, which must include a
(C) The amount that would have been the qualifying payment amount had the service code or modifier not been downcoded;
(f)
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Select as the out-of-network rate for the qualified IDR item or service one of the offers submitted under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, weighing only the considerations specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section (as applied to the information provided by the parties pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section). The certified IDR entity must select the offer that the certified IDR entity determines best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service as the out-of-network rate.
(iii)
(A) The certified IDR entity must consider the qualifying payment amount(s) for the applicable year for the same or similar item or service.
(B) The certified IDR entity must then consider information submitted by a party that relates to the following circumstances:
(
(
(
(
(
(C) The certified IDR entity must also consider information provided by a party in response to a request by the certified IDR entity under paragraph (c)(4)(i)(A)(
(D) The certified IDR entity must also consider additional information submitted by a party that relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination and that does not include information on factors described in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
(E) In weighing the considerations described in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section, the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether the information is credible and relates to the offer submitted by either party for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination. The certified IDR entity should not give weight to information to the extent it is not credible, it does not relate to either party's offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service, or it is already accounted for by the qualifying payment amount under paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(A) of this section or other credible information under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section.
(iv)
(A)
(
(B)
(
(C)
(
(D)
(
(E)
(
(vi) * * *
(B) The certified IDR entity's written decision must include an explanation of their determination, including what information the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the offer selected as the out-of-network rate is the offer that best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service, including the weight given to the qualifying payment amount and any additional credible information under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section. If the certified IDR entity relies on information described under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section in selecting an offer, the written decision must include an explanation of why the certified IDR entity concluded that this information was not already reflected in the qualifying payment amount.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(F) The rationale for the certified IDR entity's decision, including the extent to which the decision relied on the criteria in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section;
(h)
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) * * *
(iv) * * *
(F) The rationale for the certified IDR entity's decision, including the extent to which the decision relied on the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section and § 2590.716-8(c)(4)(iii)(C) and (D);
(c)
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services adopts as final the interim rules adding 45 CFR 149.140, published at 86 FR 36872 (July 13, 2021), and 45 CFR 149.510 and 149.520, published at 86 FR 55980 (October 7, 2021), with the following changes to 45 CFR part 149:
42 U.S.C. 300gg-92 and 300gg-111 through 300gg-139, as amended.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(18)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If the qualifying payment amount is based on a downcoded service code or modifier—
(A) A statement that the service code or modifier billed by the provider, facility, or provider of air ambulance services was downcoded;
(B) An explanation of why the claim was downcoded, which must include a description of which service codes were altered, if any, and a description of which modifiers were altered, added, or removed, if any; and
(C) The amount that would have been the qualifying payment amount had the service code or modifier not been downcoded;
(g)
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Select as the out-of-network rate for the qualified IDR item or service one of the offers submitted under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, weighing only the considerations specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section (as applied to the information provided by the parties pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section). The certified IDR entity must select the offer that the certified IDR entity determines best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service as the out-of-network rate.
(iii)
(A) The certified IDR entity must consider the qualifying payment amount(s) for the applicable year for the same or similar item or service.
(B) The certified IDR entity must then consider information submitted by a party that relates to the following circumstances:
(
(
(
(
(
(C) The certified IDR entity must also consider information provided by a party in response to a request by the certified IDR entity under paragraph (c)(4)(i)(A)(
(D) The certified IDR entity must also consider additional information submitted by a party that relates to the offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination and that does not include information on factors described in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
(E) In weighing the considerations described in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section, the certified IDR entity should evaluate whether the information is credible and relates to the offer submitted by either party for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service that is the subject of the payment determination. The certified IDR entity should not give weight to information to the extent it is not credible, it does not relate to either party's offer for the payment amount for the qualified IDR item or service, or it is already accounted for by the qualifying payment amount under paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(A) of this section or other credible information under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section.
(iv)
(A)
(
(B)
(
(C)
(
(D)
(
(E)
(
(vi) * * *
(B) The certified IDR entity's written decision must include an explanation of their determination, including what information the certified IDR entity determined demonstrated that the offer selected as the out-of-network rate is the offer that best represents the value of the qualified IDR item or service, including the weight given to the qualifying payment amount and any additional credible information under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section. If the certified IDR entity relies on information described under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section in selecting an offer, the written decision must include an explanation of why the certified IDR entity concluded that this information was not already reflected in the qualifying payment amount.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(F) The rationale for the certified IDR entity's decision, including the extent to which the decision relied on the criteria in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section;
(h)
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) * * *
(iv) * * *
(F) The rationale for the certified IDR entity's decision, including the extent to which the decision relied on the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section and § 149.510(c)(4)(iii)(C) and (D);
(c)