Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Executive Office of the President.
Final rule.
The Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) is issuing its implementing regulations for the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. The final rule describes how to make a FOIA request with IPEC and how IPEC processes requests for records. The final rule also states IPEC's Privacy Act Policies and Procedures. The final rule describes how individuals can find out if an IPEC system of records contains information about them and, if so, how to access or amend a record.
This final rule is effective on March 10, 2023.
Steven D. Aitken, Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Executive Office of the President, at (202) 395-4728 or
During its first ten years of operation, following its establishment “within the Executive Office of the President” in Title III of the PRO IP Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-403; 15 U.S.C. 8111-8116), IPEC was located within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). With the enactment of a separate appropriation for IPEC in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-93, Div. C), IPEC has moved out of OMB and become a stand-alone component of the Executive Office of the President. Accordingly, IPEC is issuing its implementing regulations on FOIA and the Privacy Act.
The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552
On September 22, 2022, IPEC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on its proposed regulations for FOIA and the Privacy Act (87 FR 57840). In response, IPEC received seven public comments about the proposed rule, two of which suggested revisions to the proposed regulatory text. IPEC appreciates the commenters' focus on the proposed rule and the suggestions that they made.
In response to the comments (and based on a further review of the proposed rule, the FOIA statute, and the Justice Department's guidance on FOIA), IPEC has made several revisions to the regulatory text on FOIA, include the following: §§ 10400.3 (revised several of the definitions); 10400.4 (added a “reading room” reference); 10400.6 (deleted paragraph (i) as unnecessary in this regulation, and revised several paragraphs); 10400.7 (revised paragraph (a) and added new paragraphs (c) and (d)); 10400.8 (revised paragraph (a)(2) and paragraph (b)); 10400.9 (revised paragraph (c)); 10400.10 (revised paragraph (a)); 10400.12 (deleted paragraph (e) as duplicative of another provision in the regulation); 10400.13 (revised paragraph (b)); 10400.14 (revised paragraphs (b) and (d)); and 10400.18 (revised paragraph (j)). In addition, in response to a comment, IPEC has revised the regulatory text on the Privacy Act in paragraph (a) of § 10400.22; also, revisions have been made to paragraph (b) of § 10400.21 and paragraphs (b)(2) and (f)(2) of § 10400.23.
One commenter pointed out that, unless the disclosure of information is prohibited by law, the FOIA Improvements Act of 2016 directs agencies to apply the “foreseeable harm” standard in determining whether to withhold a record, in whole or in part, under an applicable FOIA exemption. The “foreseeable harm” standard is reiterated in the Attorney General's “Freedom of Information Act Guidelines” of March 15, 2022 (
Freedom of information. Privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552, 552a
The regulations in this part prescribe procedures by which individuals may obtain access to agency records of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, as well as the procedures IPEC must follow in response to requests for records under the FOIA. The regulations should be read together with the FOIA and the “Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines” issued by the Office of Management and Budget. All requests for access to information contained within a system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, shall be processed in accordance with these regulations. Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA or the Privacy Act.
The Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator was created by Title III of the Pro IP Act of 2008, 15 U.S.C. 8111
For the purpose of this part, all the terms defined in the Freedom of Information Act apply.
The Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator makes available information pertaining to matters issued, adopted, or promulgated by IPEC, that are within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). Such “reading room” information is located at
Requests for records that are in IPEC's custody, and for which other agencies (or other Federal Government offices) have an interest, shall be reviewed by IPEC. IPEC will then either consult with the other agencies or offices regarding the records; refer the records to the other agencies for further processing; or coordinate with the other agencies when a referral is not appropriate.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) A request for records must describe the records that it seeks in sufficient detail and in writing to enable IPEC to locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort. To the extent possible, each request must reasonably describe the record(s) sought, including by referencing the type of document; a specific event or action; the title or name, author, recipient, subject matter, date or time period, and/or location of the record; and any other pertinent data that would assist in identifying the record(s) sought. If after receiving a request IPEC determines that the request does not reasonably describe the record(s) sought, IPEC will inform the requester what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. Before or after submitting their requests, requesters may contact IPEC's FOIA contact or FOIA Public Liaison to discuss the record(s) they seek and for assistance in describing the record(s).
(b)(1) If an individual is making a request for records that are about the individual, the requester must comply with the verification of identity provision set forth in § 10400.21(f).
(2) If a request for records pertains to a third party, the requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or an unsworn declaration under 26 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester. As an exercise of administrative discretion, IPEC may require the requester to provide additional information if necessary in order to verify that a particular individual has consented to disclosure. If the records that are requested pertain
(c) Requesters may specify the preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records they seek. IPEC will accommodate formatting requests if the record is readily reproducible in that form or format.
(d) Whenever it is appropriate to do so, IPEC automatically processes a Privacy Act request for access to records under both the Privacy Act and the FOIA, following the rules contained in this part. IPEC processes a request under both the FOIA and Privacy Act so that requesters will receive the maximum amount of information available by law.
(e) Requests must be received by IPEC through methods specified on the FOIA page of IPEC's website:
(f) The words “FOIA REQUEST” or “REQUEST FOR RECORDS” should be clearly marked on all FOIA request communications.
(g) The requester must provide contact information, such as the requester's phone number, email address or mailing address, so that IPEC will be able to communicate with the requester about the request and provide released records. If IPEC cannot contact the requester, or the requester does not respond within 30 working days to our request for clarification, IPEC will close the request.
(h) To protect our computer systems, IPEC reserves the right to not open attachments to emailed requests. Please include the request within the body of the email, along with such additional information that is relevant, such as information in support of a request for expedited processing, for a fee categorization, or for a fee waiver. If after receiving a request IPEC determines that it does not include sufficient information on which to grant, or deny, a request for expedited process, a fee categorization, or a fee waiver, IPEC will so inform the requester and provide the requester an opportunity to submit additional information in support of such request.
(a)
(2) Under the FOIA, an agency is to make an initial determination acknowledging and granting, partially granting, or denying a request for records within 20 working days after the agency receives a FOIA request (an agency may extend this period for “unusual circumstances”;
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;
(2) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by the agency in denying the request;
(3) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption;
(4) A statement that the denial may be appealed to the FOIA Appeals Officer (the IPEC Legal Advisor or a designee) within 90 calendar days of the date of the response (the requirements for making an appeal are specified in § 10400.10); and
(5) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the IPEC's FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by OGIS.
(a)
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally, and the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.
(2) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing. For example, under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that the requester is a person who is primarily engaged in information dissemination, though it need not be the requester's sole
(3) Within 10 calendar days of IPEC's receipt of a request for expedited processing, IPEC will decide whether to grant it and will notify the requester of the decision. If a request for expedited processing is granted, the request will be given priority and will be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision will be acted on expeditiously.
(b)
(c)
(a) In unusual circumstances, IPEC may extend the time limits prescribed in §§ 10400.7 and 10400.8 by written notice to the FOIA requester. The notice will state the reasons for the extension.
(b) The phrase “unusual circumstances” means:
(1) The requested records are located in establishments that are separated from the office processing the request;
(2) A single request seeks a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records; or
(3) Another agency has a substantial interest in the determination of the request.
(c) Whenever IPEC cannot meet the 20 working-day time limit under § 10400.7 for processing a request because of “unusual circumstances,” and IPEC extends the time limit on that basis, IPEC shall promptly notify the requester (before the expiration of the 20 working-day period) in writing of the unusual circumstances involved, that an extension of 10 working days has been made, and of the date by which IPEC estimates that it will complete the processing of the request (if completion is not estimated to occur within the 10 working-day extension period). For those requests for which the extension exceeds 10 working days, IPEC will provide the requester an opportunity to modify the request (so that it may be processed within an extension of 10 working days) or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request. IPEC will make available its designated FOIA contact or its FOIA Public Liaison for this purpose. IPEC will also alert requesters to the availability of the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to provide dispute resolution services.
(a) An appeal to the IPEC must explain the reasoning and factual basis for the appeal. It must be received by email at
(b) The FOIA Appeals Officer (the Legal Advisor or a designee) will decide the appeal within 20 working days. If the FOIA Appeals Officer denies an appeal in whole or in part, the written determination will contain the reason for the denial, the name and title of the person responsible for the denial, any FOIA exemptions applied, and the provisions for judicial review of the denial and ruling on appeal provided in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4). The denial will also inform the requestor of the dispute resolution services offered by OGIS as a non-exclusive alternate to litigation. If IPEC agrees to participate in voluntary dispute resolution services provided by OGIS, it will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
IPEC will assess a fee to process FOIA requests in accordance with the provisions of this section and the “Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines” issued by the Office of Management and Budget. IPEC shall ensure that searches, review, and duplication are conducted in the most efficient and the least expensive manner. IPEC will charge the following fees unless a waiver or reduction of fees is granted under § 10400.15, or the total fee to be charged is less than $25.00. IPEC will notify the requester if IPEC estimates that charges will exceed $25.00 including a breakdown of the fees for search, review, or duplication and whether applicable entitlements to duplication and search at no charge have been provided. IPEC will not process the request until the requester either commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees that it is willing to pay.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) Payment for FOIA services may be made by check or money order made payable to the Treasury of the United States. IPEC will provide the requester with instructions on how to make the payment. IPEC will provide a receipt for fees paid upon request. IPEC will not refund fees paid for services actually rendered.
(b) IPEC may require advance payment (or a satisfactory written assurance of full payment) where the estimated fee exceeds $250, or a requester previously failed to pay within 30 calendar days of the billing date. IPEC will not process the request until the requester either makes the advance payment or provides a satisfactory written assurance.
(c) IPEC may assess interest charges beginning the 31st day of billing. Interest will be at the rate prescribed in section 3717 of Title 31, United States Code, and will accrue from the date of the billing.
(d) IPEC may assess search charges where records are not located or where records are exempt from disclosure.
(a) For fees, there are four categories of FOIA requesters: commercial use requests; educational and non-commercial scientific institution requests; requests from representatives of the news media; and all other requesters.
(b) The specific levels of fees for each of these categories are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a) No search fees will be charged for requests by educational institutions (unless the records are sought for a commercial use), noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media.
(b) If IPEC fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits in which to respond to a request, it may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters described in § 10400.13(b)(2) and (3), may not charge duplication fees, except as described in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section.
(c) If IPEC determines that unusual circumstances as defined by the FOIA apply and the agency provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.
(d) If IPEC determines that unusual circumstances as defined by the FOIA apply, and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the agency may charge search fees, or, in the case of requesters described in § 10400.13(b)(2) and (3), may charge duplication fees if the following steps are taken. IPEC must have provided timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA and the agency must have discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). If this exception is satisfied, IPEC may charge all applicable fees incurred in the processing of the request.
(e) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
(f) No search or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.
(g) When, after first deducting the 100 free pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first two hours of search, a total fee calculated under paragraph (c) of this section is $25.00 or less for any request, no fee will be charged.
Requirements for waiver or reduction of fees:
(a) Requesters may seek a waiver of fees by submitting a written application demonstrating how disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(b) IPEC must furnish records responsive to a request without charge or at a reduced rate when it determines, based on all available information, that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. In deciding whether this standard is satisfied the agency must consider the factors described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Disclosure of the requested information would shed light on the operations or activities of the government. The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or
(2) Disclosure of the requested information would be likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of those operations or activities. This factor is satisfied when the following criteria are met:
(i) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not be meaningfully informative if nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.
(ii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public must be considered. IPEC will presume that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.
(3) The disclosure must not be primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. To determine whether disclosure of the requested information is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, IPEC will consider the following criteria:
(i) IPEC must identify whether the requester has any commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. A commercial interest includes any commercial, trade, or profit interest. Requesters must be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.
(ii) If there is an identified commercial interest, IPEC must determine whether that is the primary interest furthered by the request. A waiver or reduction of fees is justified when the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are satisfied and any commercial interest is not the primary interest furthered by the request. IPEC ordinarily will presume that when a news media requester has satisfied the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the request is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return will not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(c) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver shall be granted for those records.
(d) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to IPEC and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.
When IPEC reasonably believes that a requester or a group of requesters acting in concert is attempting to divide a single request into a series of requests for the purpose of avoiding fees, IPEC may aggregate those requests and charge accordingly. IPEC may presume that multiple requests of this type made within a 30-day period have been made in order to avoid fees. For requests separated by a longer period, IPEC will aggregate them only where there is a reasonable basis for determining that aggregation is warranted in view of all the circumstances involved. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters cannot be aggregated.
When requested records contain matters that are exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), but such exempted matters can be reasonably segregated from the remainder of the records, the records shall be disclosed by IPEC with the necessary redactions. If records are disclosed in part, IPEC will mark them to show the amount and location of information redacted and the exemption(s) under which the redactions were made unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4; or
(ii) IPEC has a reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure.
(2) The notice must either describe the commercial information requested or include a copy of the requested records or portions of records containing the information. In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, IPEC may post or publish a notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to inform the submitters of the proposed disclosure, instead of sending individual notifications.
(d)
(1) IPEC determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA, and therefore will not be disclosed;
(2) The information has been lawfully published or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than the FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 of June 23, 1987; or
(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous. In such case, IPEC must give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information within a reasonable number of days prior to a specified disclosure date.
(e)
(2) If a submitter has any objections to disclosure, it should provide IPEC a detailed written statement that specifies all grounds for withholding the particular information under any exemption of the FOIA. In order to rely on Exemption 4 as the basis for nondisclosure, the submitter must explain why the information constitutes a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is confidential.
(3) A submitter who fails to respond within the time period specified in the notice will be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. IPEC is not required to consider any information received after the date of any disclosure decision. Any information provided by a submitter under this subpart may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
(f)
(g)
(1) A statement of the reasons why each of the submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;
(2) A description of the information to be disclosed or copies of the records as IPEC intends to release them; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which must be a reasonable time after the notice.
(h)
(i)
(j)
For purposes of this subpart:
This subpart implements the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, a Federal law that requires Federal agencies to protect private information about individuals that the agencies collect or maintain. It establishes IPEC's rules for access to records in systems of records we maintain that are retrieved by an individual's name or another personal identifier. It describes the procedures by which individuals may request access to records, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by IPEC. Whenever it is appropriate to do so, IPEC automatically processes a Privacy Act request for access to records under both the Privacy Act and the FOIA, following the rules contained in this part. IPEC processes a request under both the Privacy Act and the FOIA so you will receive the maximum amount of information available to you by law.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(i) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record, by stating the individual's name, current address, and date and place of birth;
(ii) Your own identity, as required in paragraph (f)(1) of this section;
(iii) That you are the parent or legal guardian of the individual, which you may prove by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing your parentage or a court order establishing your guardianship; and
(iv) That you are acting on behalf of the individual in making the request.
(a)
(b)
(2) We will also notify the individual who is subject to the record in writing, if, based on your request, any system of records contains a record pertaining to him or her.
(3) If IPEC makes an adverse determination with respect to your request, our written response will identify the name and address of the person responsible for the adverse determination, that the adverse determination is not a final agency action, and describe the procedures by which you may appeal the adverse determination under § 10400.23.
(4) An adverse determination is a response to a Privacy Act request that:
(i) Withholds any requested record in whole or in part;
(ii) Denies a request to amend a record in whole or in part;
(iii) Declines to provide an accounting of disclosures;
(iv) Advises that a requested record does not exist or cannot be located;
(v) Finds that what you requested is not a record subject to the Privacy Act; or
(vi) Advises on any disputed fee matter.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2) We ordinarily will not adjudicate an appeal if the request becomes a matter of litigation.
(3) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the Privacy Act Appeals Officer must take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
(d)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(g)
(a)
(b)
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Final rule.
On December 29, 2022, the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) issued determinations modifying the generally authorized destination status of Mexico and revoking the general authorizations for exports of controlled nuclear technology and assistance to Colombia and Egypt under DOE's regulation on Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities. Accordingly, DOE is issuing this final rule to remove the restriction on the general authorization previously applicable to Mexico and to remove Colombia and Egypt from the generally authorized destinations list in appendix A.
This rule is effective on February 8, 2023.
Ms. Katie Strangis, Deputy Director, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control (NPAC), National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-8623; Mr. Thomas Reilly, Office of the General Counsel, GC-53, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-3417; or Mr. Zachary Stern, Office of the General Counsel, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-8627.
On December 29, 2022, the Secretary issued two determinations, (1) “determination and authorization pursuant to section 57 b.(2) of the
Part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (part 810) implements section 57 b.(2) of the AEA, pursuant to which the Secretary has granted a general authorization for certain categories of activities which the Secretary has found to be non-inimical to the interest of the United States—including assistance or transfers of technology to the generally authorized destinations listed in appendix A to part 810. The Appendix A list currently includes Colombia, Egypt, and Mexico, with Mexico currently listed as a generally authorized destination only for activities related to INFCIRC/203 Parts 1 and 2 and INFCIRC/825. In light of the Secretary's Determinations to expand Mexico's generally authorized status to cover the full scope of exports of part 810-controlled nuclear technology and assistance, and to revoke the general authorizations for exports of part 810-controlled nuclear technology and assistance to Colombia and Egypt, DOE is amending the generally authorized destinations list in appendix A by removing the restrictive language after Mexico and removing Colombia and Egypt from Appendix A.
In accordance with the
DOE finds good cause that notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary due to the nature of the revisions. This final rule simply makes ministerial changes to appendix A by removing the restriction on the general authorization previously applicable to Mexico and by removing Colombia and Egypt from the generally authorized destinations list. Comments cannot alter the regulation
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that there is good cause to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment because the action merely aligns appendix A with the Secretarial Determinations. A delay in effective date is unnecessary for these same reasons. Therefore, these amendments are published as final and are effective February 8, 2023.
This final rule has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
DOE has determined that this rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's
The
The changes to appendix A are summarized in Section I of this document. DOE has reviewed the changes under the provisions of the
DOE estimates that approximately 10 percent of the entities impacted by the part 810 regulation are small businesses. Small businesses impacted by the part 810 regulation generally fall within two North American Industry Classification System codes: engineering services (541330) and computer systems designs services (541512). Often, their requests for authorization include the transfer of computer codes or other similar products. Generally speaking, small businesses reported that their initial filing of a part 810 request for authorization required up to 40 hours of legal assistance, but follow-on reporting and requests required significantly less assistance.
The requirements for small businesses exporting nuclear technology abroad would not substantively change because the revisions to this rule do not add new burdens or duties to small businesses. The obligations of any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who engages directly or indirectly in the production of special nuclear material outside the United States have not changed in a manner that would provide any significant economic impact on small businesses. This rulemaking change requires such persons to obtain specific authorization before making such transfers to Colombia and Egypt, but this change is not expected to have any significant impact. Conversely, this rulemaking no longer requires such persons to obtain specific authorization before making such transfers to Mexico, which is expected to ease the burden on small businesses.
On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.
This final rule imposes no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the
The
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Section 654 of the
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May
The
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Foreign relations, Nuclear energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 29, 2022, by Jennifer Granholm, 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
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 810 of chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
Secs. 57, 127, 128, 129, 161, 222, and 232 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-242, 68 Stat. 932, 948, 950, 958, 92 Stat. 126, 136, 137, 138 (42 U.S.C. 2077, 2156, 2157, 2158, 2201, 2272, 2280), and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3768; Sec. 104 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-438; Sec. 301, Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91; National Nuclear Security Administration Act, Pub. L. 106-65, 50 U.S.C. 2401
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) has adopted final amendments to its Regulation A to reflect the Board's approval of an increase in the rate for primary credit at each Federal Reserve Bank. The secondary credit rate at each Reserve Bank automatically increased by formula as a result of the Board's primary credit rate action.
M. Benjamin Snodgrass, Senior Counsel (202-263-4877), Legal Division, or Nicole Trachman, Financial Institution & Policy Analyst (202-973-5055), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of telephone systems via text telephone (TTY) or any TTY-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), please call 711 from any telephone, anywhere in the United States; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551.
The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to review and determination of the Board.
On February 1, 2023, the Board voted to approve a 0.25 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate, thereby increasing the primary credit rate from 4.50 percent to 4.75 percent. In addition, the Board had previously approved the renewal of the secondary credit rate formula, the primary credit rate plus 50 basis points. Under the
The 0.25 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate was associated with a 0.25 percentage point increase in the target range for the federal funds rate (from a target range of 4
In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
Regulation A establishes the interest rates that the twelve Reserve Banks charge for extensions of primary credit and secondary credit. The Board has determined that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of the APA do not apply to these final amendments to Regulation A. The amendments involve a matter relating to loans and are therefore exempt under the terms of the APA. Furthermore, because delay would undermine the Board's action in responding to economic data and conditions, the Board has determined that “good cause” exists within the meaning of the APA to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to the final amendments to Regulation A.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995,
Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR Chapter II to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(i)-(j), 343
(a)
(b)
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) has adopted final amendments to its Regulation D to revise the rate of interest paid on balances (“IORB”) maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of eligible institutions. The final amendments specify that IORB is 4.65 percent, a 0.25 percentage point increase from its prior level. The amendment is intended to enhance the role of IORB in maintaining the federal funds rate in the target range established by the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC” or “Committee”).
M. Benjamin Snodgrass, Senior Counsel (202-263-4877), Legal Division, or Nicole Trachman, Financial Institution & Policy Analyst (202-973-5055), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users
For monetary policy purposes, section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (“Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions.
The Board is amending § 204.10(b)(1) of Regulation D to establish IORB at 4.65 percent. The amendment represents a 0.25 percentage point increase in IORB. This decision was announced on February 1, 2023, with an effective date of February 2, 2023, in the Federal Reserve Implementation Note that accompanied the FOMC's statement on February 1, 2023. The FOMC statement stated that the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 4
The Federal Reserve Implementation Note stated:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System voted unanimously to raise the interest rate paid on reserve balances to 4.65 percent, effective February 2, 2023.
As a result, the Board is amending § 204.10(b)(1) of Regulation D to establish IORB at 4.65 percent.
In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
The Board has determined that good cause exists for finding that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date provisions of the APA are unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest with respect to these final amendments to Regulation D. The rate change for IORB that is reflected in the final amendment to Regulation D was made with a view towards accommodating commerce and business and with regard to their bearing upon the general credit situation of the country. Notice and public comment would prevent the Board's action from being effective as promptly as necessary in the public interest and would not otherwise serve any useful purpose. Notice, public comment, and a delayed effective date would create uncertainty about the finality and effectiveness of the Board's action and undermine the effectiveness of that action. Accordingly, the Board has determined that good cause exists to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to this final amendment to Regulation D.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995,
Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 204 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 461, 601, 611, and 3105.
(b) * * *
(1) For balances maintained in an eligible institution's master account, interest is the amount equal to the interest on reserve balances rate (“IORB rate”) on a day multiplied by the total balances maintained on that day. The IORB rate is 4.65 percent.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Fertile, MN. This action supports the establishment of public instrument procedures at Fertile Municipal Airport, Fertile, MN.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, 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 establishes Class E airspace extending upward form 700 feet above the surface at Fertile Municipal Airport, Fertile, MN, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, 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 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward form 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Fertile Municipal Airport, Fertile, MN.
This action supports the establishment of public instrument procedures at Fertile Municipal 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.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Fertile Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.
Notification of policy.
This notification provides information on flight training, checking, and testing for compensation in aircraft that hold experimental airworthiness certificates in compliance with the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (the Act), which was signed by President Joseph R. Biden on December 23, 2022. This notification provides sample scenarios to illustrate when a letter of deviation authority (LODA) is required and scenarios when a LODA is not required.
The policy described herein is effective February 8, 2023.
For technical questions concerning this policy notification, contact Erin Cappel, General Aviation and Commercial Division, General Aviation Operations Section, (202) 267-1100, or email
President Joseph R. Biden signed the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (the Act) (Pub. L. 117-263) on December 23, 2022. Section 5604 of the Act mandates self-enacting provisions related to flight training, checking, and testing in experimental aircraft. The Act states that flight instructors, registered owners, lessors, or lessees of an experimental aircraft shall not be required to obtain a letter of deviation authority (LODA) to allow, conduct, or receive flight training, checking, and testing in experimental aircraft, if:
(1) The flight instructor is not providing both the training and the aircraft;
(2) No person advertises or broadly offers the aircraft as available for flight training, checking, or testing; and
(3) No person receives compensation for the use of the aircraft for a specific flight during which flight training, checking, or testing was received, other than expenses for owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft.
The Act provides relief from the § 91.319(h) LODA requirement for certain persons who wish to receive training, checking, or testing in an experimental aircraft. Likewise, the Act supersedes the 2021 FAA Notification of Policy requiring owners and flight instructors in certain circumstances to obtain a LODA through a streamlined process.
The instructor providing the training may receive compensation for their services but may not provide the aircraft. Persons who wish to broadly offer flight training, testing, or checking in experimental aircraft, or who seek financial gain for provision of an aircraft for those services, will still be required to obtain a LODA (FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 11, Section 1).
The FAA provides the following flight training scenarios to provide greater clarity on the impact of section 5604 of the Act and the situations in which a LODA is still required.
As noted in the July 2021
In the July 2021
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) published a document in the
Effective February 27, 2023.
Robert Jones, Assistant Director, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th Street SW, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, or by telephone at (202) 326-3100, Email:
The Commission is correcting its regulations published in the final rule “Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements” on January 30, 2023.
In FR Rule Doc. No. 2023-01584, appearing on page 5748 in the
1. In the
Separately, the Commission finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this final rule to become effective on February 27, 2023. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This final rule conforms with the new fee tiers and fees enacted by Congress on December 29, 2022—more than 30 days ago. In addition, the public interest is served by having the effective date of this final rule be the same as the effective date announced in the notice of revised jurisdictional thresholds published at 88 FR 5004, and thereby avoiding confusion about the relevant effective date.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for certain navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean near or in the vicinity of Surfside Beach, South Carolina. The temporary security zone is needed to protect the public, persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by physical objects in the subject navigable waters. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston, or designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from February 6, 2023, through February 18, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from February 4, 2023, through February 6, 2023.
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 the Sector Charleston Command Center, U.S. Coast Guard, Telephone: 843-740-7050, 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. It is impracticable because immediate action is required, and we lack sufficient time to collect and address public comments before the effective date of this rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Charleston has determined this rule is needed to enhance public and maritime safety and security from potential hazards associated with physical objects in certain navigable waters near or in the vicinity of Surfside Beach, South Carolina.
The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone, for certain navigable waters near or in the vicinity of Surfside Beach, South Carolina, to include a 10 nautical mile area of the U.S. territorial sea extending from the point 33°37′ N 078°39′ W. The temporary security zone is intended to protect the public, persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with physical objects in certain navigable waters near or in the vicinity of Surfside Beach, South Carolina. It will be enforced every day from midnight to 11:59 p.m.
No vessel or person is permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Sector Charleston, or a designated representative. A designated representative is any Coast Guard commissed, warrant, or petty officer, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a federal, state, and local officer designated by or assisting the COTP Sector Charleston in the enforcement of the temporary security zone. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Sector Charleston or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through the Sector Surfside Beach Command Center at 843-740-7050. Vessels or persons permitted to enter the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP Sector Charleston or designated representative. The COTP Sector Charleston or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the security zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.
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 size, location, and limited duration of the security zone. This zone impacts a 320 square nautical mile area near or in the vicinity of Surfside Beach, South Carolina, with a limited duration of 14 days.
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 this temporary security 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 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
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, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the Sector Charleston Command Center via VHF-FM Channel 16, or telephone at 843-740-7050. Vessels and persons permitted to enter the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP Sector Charleston or a designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
On April 28, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule seeking comments in response to a petition requesting the revision of the EPA's regulatory definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) to exempt
This final rule is effective on April 10, 2023.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0420. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Dr. Souad Benromdhane, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Mail Code C539-07, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-4359; fax number: (919) 541-5315; email address:
1. Contribution to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
2. Toxicity
3. Contribution to Climate Change
Entities potentially affected by this final rule include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: state and local air pollution control agencies that adopt and implement regulations to control air emissions of VOC; and industries manufacturing and/or using HFO-1336mzz(E) for use in foam blowing, refrigeration, as well as applications in solvents and aerosol propellants, and other minor uses. Potential entities that may be affected by this action include the following:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that might be affected by this deregulatory action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware of that could potentially be affected to some extent by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected to some extent. To determine whether your entity is directly or indirectly affected by this action, you should consult your state or local air pollution control and/or air quality management agencies.
Tropospheric O
The CAA requires the regulation of VOC for various purposes. Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that the EPA has the authority to define the meaning of “VOC” and, hence, what compounds shall be treated as VOC for regulatory purposes. The policy of excluding negligibly reactive compounds from the regulatory definition of VOC was first laid out in the “Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds” (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) (“1977 Recommended Policy”) and was supplemented subsequently with the “Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans” (70 FR 54046, September 13, 2005) (“2005 Interim Guidance”). The EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as the threshold for determining whether a compound has negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive than, or equally reactive to, ethane under certain assumed conditions may be deemed negligibly reactive and, therefore, suitable for exemption from the regulatory definition of VOC. Compounds that are more reactive than ethane continue to be considered VOC for regulatory purposes and, therefore, are subject to control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the 1977 Recommended Policy.
The EPA has used three different metrics to compare the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) the rate constant for reaction with the hydroxyl radical (OH) (known as k
The k
The MIR, both by mole and by mass, is a more updated metric of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-based photochemical model, and it has been used as a metric of reactivity since 1995. This metric considers the complete O
The EPA has considered the choice between MIRs with a molar or mass basis for the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. In the 2005 Interim Guidance, the EPA stated that a comparison to ethane's MIR on the mass basis will strike the right balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture chemicals that significantly effect ozone formation and the threshold that is high enough to allow for the exemption of some other chemicals that may usefully substitute for more reactive compounds. And that EPA will continue to compare chemicals to ethane using k
The 2005 Interim Guidance notes that the EPA will consider a compound to be negligibly reactive if it is equally as or less reactive than ethane based on either k
The molar comparison of MIR is more consistent with the original smog chamber experiments, which compared equal molar concentrations of individual VOC, supporting the selection of ethane as the threshold, while the mass-based comparison of MIR is consistent with how MIR values and other reactivity metrics are applied in reactivity-based emission limits. It is, however, important to note that the mass-based comparison is less restrictive than the molar-based comparison in that more compounds would qualify as negligibly reactive.
Given the two goals of the exemption policy articulated in the 2005 Interim Guidance, the EPA believes that ethane continues to be an appropriate threshold for defining negligible reactivity. And, to encourage the use of environmentally beneficial substitutions, the EPA believes that a comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the right balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture compounds that significantly affect O
The 2005 Interim Guidance also noted that concerns have sometimes been raised about the potential impact of a VOC exemption on environmental endpoints other than O
The Chemours Company submitted a petition to the EPA on November 30, 2016, requesting that
To support its petition, Chemours referenced several documents, including one peer-reviewed journal article on HFO-1336mzz(E) reaction rates (Osterstrom
To address the potential for stratospheric O
On April 28, 2022, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking (87 FR 25170) seeking comments in response to the petition to revise the EPA's regulatory definition of VOC for exemption of HFO-1336mzz(E). The EPA is taking final action to respond to the petition by exempting HFO-1336mzz(E) from the regulatory definition of VOC. This action is based on consideration of the compound's low contribution to tropospheric O
As noted in studies cited by the petitioner, HFO-1336mzz(E) has a MIR value of 0.011 g O
Table 2 presents three reactivity metrics for HFO-1336mzz(E) as they compare to ethane.
The reaction rate of HFO-1336mzz(E) with the OH radical (k
A molecule of HFO-1336mzz(E) is much less reactive than a molecule of ethane in terms of complete O
The EPA's decision to exempt HFO-1336mzz(E) from the regulatory definition of VOC is based on our findings above. However, as noted in the 2005 Interim Guidance, the EPA reserves the right to exercise its judgment in certain cases where an exemption is likely to result in a significant increase in the use of a compound and a subsequent significantly increased risk to human health or the environment. In this case, the EPA does not find that exemption of HFO-1336mzz(E) would result in an increase of risk to human health or the environment, with regard to stratospheric O
The SNAP program is the EPA's program to evaluate and regulate substitutes for end-uses historically using O
HFO-1336mzz(E) is unlikely to contribute to the depletion of the stratospheric O
Based on screening assessments of the health and environmental risks of HFO-1336mzz(E), the SNAP program anticipated that users will be able to use the compound without significantly greater health risks than presented by the use of other available substitutes for the same end uses (USEPA, 2020).
The EPA anticipates that HFO-1336mzz(E) will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the manufacturer's safety data sheet (SDS) (Chemours, 2016). According to the SDS, potential health effects from inhalation of HFO-1336mzz(E) include skin or eye irritation or frostbite. Exposure to high concentrations of HFO-1336mzz(E) from misuse or intentional inhalation abuse may cause irregular heartbeat. In addition, HFO-1336mzz(E) could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. The Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) committee of the Occupational Alliance for Risk Science (OARS) reviewed available animal toxicity data and recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 400 parts per million (ppm) (2680 mg/m
HFO-1336mzz(E) is not regulated as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under title I of the CAA. Also, it is not listed as a toxic chemical under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives the EPA authority to assess and prevent potential unreasonable risks to human health and the environment before a new chemical substance is introduced into commerce. Section 5 of TSCA requires manufacturers and importers to notify the EPA before manufacturing or importing a nonexempt new chemical substance by submitting a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) prior to the manufacture (including import) of the chemical substance. Under the TSCA New Chemicals Program, the EPA then assesses whether an unreasonable risk may, or will, be presented by the expected manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the new substance. Based on its review of a PMN and a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) for HFO-1336mzz(E), the EPA has determined that use of HFO-1336mzz(E) in consumer products or use other than as described in the PMN and SNUN may cause serious chronic health effects. To address concerns identified during the PMN review of HFO-1336mzz(E), the EPA issued a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under TSCA on May 16, 2016, to require submission of a SNUN to the EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing or processing of HFO-1336mzz(E) for any uses in consumer products or any use other than as described in the PMN (81 FR 30451, 30462, May 16, 2016). The required notification will provide the EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use before it occurs and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity to protect against an unreasonable risk. The EPA received a SNUN for a significant new use of HFO-1336mzz(E) in 2017 and modified the SNUR in June 2021 based on its determination for the SNUN (86 FR 30210, 30215, June 7, 2021)
The EPA recognizes that both HFO-1336mmz(E) and its atmospheric breakdown product trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) are members of the broad class of compounds known as per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), even though they are not among the PFAS currently listed or targeted for specific Agency action. Many PFAS are highly mobile in various media; some are volatile and can be transported long distances in air and/or in water and widely distributed in the environment. Some studies suggest that PFAS emitted to air can result in human exposures in other media such as source/surface or drinking waters even though the emissions origin may be distant from receptor water bodies.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) does not provide an estimate for HFO-1336mzz(E)'s GWP.
The EPA received two comments by the close of the public comment period on June 28, 2022, on the notice of proposed rulemaking. However, no specific issues that are relevant to our action to exempt HFO-1336mzz(E) were submitted. No negative comments were received on the proposed action or raised any issues about the PFAS and/or recommendation to address them under the revision of the VOC definition. Details on those comments received and the EPA's responses are provided below.
The commenter is correct that HFO-1336mzz(E) does not meet the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) working definition of PFAS.
The EPA is responding to the petition by revising its regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add HFO-1336mzz(E) to the list of compounds that are exempt from the regulatory definition of VOC because it is less reactive than ethane based on a comparison of mass-based MIR and molar-based MIR metrics and is, therefore, considered negligibly reactive. As a result of this action, if an entity uses or produces this compound and is subject to the EPA regulations limiting the use of VOC in a product, limiting the VOC emissions from a facility, or otherwise controlling the use of VOC for purposes related to attaining the O
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. It does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
I certify this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action removes HFO-1336mzz(E) from the regulatory
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action 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. This final action removes HFO-1336mzz(E) from the regulatory definition of VOC and, thereby, relieves manufacturers, distributers, and users from tropospheric O
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Since HFO-1336mzz(E) is utilized in specific industrial applications where children are not present and dissipates quickly (
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.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high, and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations.
The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples as we found no data available to support the opposite. Projected effects on the various populations after this action is implemented are not likely to result in new potentially disproportionate and adverse effects. We addressed the human health and environmental risks by this action to the greatest ability feasible, and those risks will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations (in particular children), because of no possible exposure. This chemical is used in specific industrial applications where children are not present. This action was developed in accordance with agency guidance on environmental justice.
This action removes HFO-1336mzz(E) from the regulatory definition of VOC and, thereby, relieves manufacturers, distributers, and users of the compound from tropospheric O
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. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For reasons stated in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(s) * * *
(1) This includes any such organic compound other than the following, which have been determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity: methane; ethane; methylene chloride (dichloromethane); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113); trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123); 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b); 1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a); parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF); cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes; acetone; perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene); 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca); 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb); 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoropentane (HFC 43-10mee); difluoromethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride (HFC-161); 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa); 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc); chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31); 1 chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane (C
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Peptide Derived from Harpin Protein (PDHP) 25279 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Plant Health Care Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of PDHP 25279 under FFDCA when used in accordance with this exemption.
This regulation is effective February 8, 2023. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 10, 2023 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0396, is available at
Charles Smith, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1400; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0396 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 10, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although EPA strongly encourages those interested in submitting objections or a hearing request to submit objections and hearing requests electronically.
Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions during this time that the Agency continues to maximize telework due to the pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. If it is impossible for a person to submit documents electronically or receive service electronically,
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0396, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a
EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on PDHP 25279 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment, Review of Product Characterization and Manufacturing Processes of the New End-Use Product PHC 25279 Containing the New Active Ingredient Harpin Protein PDHP 25279. Data was Provided in Support of a FIFRA Section 3 Registration and Establishment of a Permanent Tolerance Exemption” (Human Health Risk Assessment). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under
Available data have demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Peptide Derived from Harpin Protein (PDHP) 25279 is not anticipated to be toxic or allergenic via any reasonably foreseeable route of exposure. The active ingredient in PDHP 25279 is a 28 amino acid peptide derived from the harpinW protein found in the phytopathogenic bacterium
The Agency has concluded that any potential dietary risk from the use of PDHP 25279 to human health is considered negligible for the following reasons: (1) PDHP 25279 was found to have low toxicity via the oral route of exposure, did not show any homology to known or putative allergens, and is rapidly degraded in simulated gastric fluids. The submitted mammalian toxicity studies and the studies that are bridged from similar already registered harpin proteins to support the tolerance exemption for the active ingredient PDHP 25279 are summarized with their classifications in the Human Health Risk Assessment, Table 2; (2) Dietary exposure to residues of the active ingredient in food and drinking water is expected to be negligible. PDHP 25279 is a protein and as such is generally expected to be biodegradable through microbial activity in the soil. Supporting this conclusion is the observation that PDHP 25279 is degraded within 5 minutes by subtilisin A, an environmental protease. It is therefore expected that biological processes will reduce run-off and potential exposure of drinking water to negligible levels. The presence of PDHP 25279 on treated crops is likely to be further reduced through normal washing and handling processes. For non-occupational exposure, there is a potential for dermal exposure by handling of plants treated with PDHP 25279. However, PDHP 25279 is expected to be of low toxicity through the dermal route of exposure given the low toxicity through the oral and inhalation routes and dermal studies conducted with the similar harpin protein Ea peptide 91398, which was found to be of low toxicity and not a skin sensitizer.
Based upon the evaluation in the Human Health Risk Assessment, which found no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to PDHP 25279, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of PDHP 25279. In addition, because no threshold effects have been identified for infants and children, EPA determined that an additional Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor is not necessary to protect infants and children from anticipated residues of PDHP 25279.
An analytical method is not needed for PDHP 25279 since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation based on a lack of adverse effects.
One comment was received during the public comment period for the notice of filing. The commentor supported the proposed tolerance exemption and noted the low toxicity, the mode of action, rapid degradation, and low anticipated dietary exposure of PDHP 25279. Based on its review of the data and other information submitted for the proposed tolerance exemption, EPA agrees with the comment in support of the petition to establish a tolerance exemption for residues of PDHP 25279 applied to food commodities.
Based on the conclusions detailed in Unit III.A. an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of PDHP 25279 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 180 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Peptide Derived from Harpin Protein (PDHP) 25279 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) crab vessels that are subject to sideboard limits, and operating as catcher vessels (CVs) using pot gear, in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2023 sideboard limit established for non-AFA crab vessels that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 5, 2023, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2023.
Abby Jahn, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The 2023 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-AFA crab vessels, and that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, is 335 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022), but was incorrectly specified as 316 mt per the 2023 inseason adjustment (87 FR 80088, December 29, 2022). A correction to the 2023 inseason adjustment will be published as soon as possible. However, it is necessary to publish this notification prior to the correction to prevent exceeding the 2023 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-AFA crab vessels, and that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
In accordance with § 680.22(e)(2)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the 2023 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-AFA crab vessels that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 335 mt and is setting aside the remaining 0 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 680.22(e)(3), the Regional Administrator finds that this sideboard directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
While this closure is effective, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
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
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 and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by modifications developed by Airbus to address a report of an emergency exit window that required excessive pushing force to jettison. This proposed AD would require removing skived polytetrafluoroethylene tape (PTFE tape) (if installed) and replacing certain polychloroprene seals with silicone seals, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). This proposed AD would also prohibit installing a jettisonable window unless the actions required by this AD have been accomplished. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by March 27, 2023.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. This material is also available at
Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued a series of ADs, the most recent being EASA AD 2021-0012, dated January 11, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0012), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model AS
This proposed AD was prompted by modifications developed by Airbus to address a report of an emergency exit window that required excessive pushing force to jettison. The FAA is proposing this AD to address excessive friction between the jettisonable cabin window and the airframe. This condition, if not addressed, could prevent the window from jettisoning, subsequently affecting the evacuation of passengers during an emergency situation. See EASA AD 2021-0012 for additional background information.
EASA AD 2021-0012 requires modifying the windows jettisoning system.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA reviewed Airbus Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-56.00.16, Revision 0, dated February 10, 2020, Airbus ASB No. AS332-56.00.18, Revision 0, dated September 23, 2020, Airbus ASB No. AS332-56.00.20, Revision 0, dated September 23, 2020, Airbus ASB No. AS332-56.00.21, Revision 0, dated September 23, 2020, Airbus ASB No. AS332-56.90.14, Revision 0, dated April 10, 2019, Airbus ASB No. EC225-56A013, Revision 1, dated February 10, 2020, Airbus ASB No. EC225-56A015, Revision 0, dated February 10, 2020, Airbus ASB No. EC225-56A016, Revision 0, dated February 10, 2020, and Airbus ASB No. EC225-56A017, Revision 0, dated February 10, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for modifying the windows jettisoning system. Depending on your helicopter configuration, the service information specifies procedures for removing PTFE tape (if installed), discarding certain internal seal keys and external extraction tapes, installing plugs on certain snap fasteners, removing certain emergency exit installation indications, measuring the thickness of certain windows, replacing certain windows, measuring the clearance between certain windows and the airframe, modifying certain assemblies of the external extraction tape with its associated marking (if necessary), and replacing certain polychloroprene seals with silicone seals.
These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0012, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0012 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0012 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0012 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0012. Service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0160 after the FAA final rule is published.
EASA AD 2021-0012 requires compliance within 250 flight hours or 6 months for certain helicopters not operated over water and within 110 flight hours or 6 months for certain other helicopters operated over water. EASA AD 2021-0012 also requires compliance within 25 months for all other affected helicopters. However, this proposed AD would require compliance within 110 hours time-in-service for all helicopters.
Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies discarding parts, this proposed AD would require removing those parts from service. The service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies contacting Airbus Helicopter to obtain a technical solution, whereas this proposed AD would require repair done in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval. The service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies using a video, whereas this proposed AD would not.
This proposed AD would also prohibit installing a jettisonable window unless the actions required by this proposed AD have been accomplished, whereas EASA AD 2021-0012 does not require any installation limitations.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 39 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
Modifying a window would take about 2 work-hours and parts would cost about $220 for an estimated cost $390 per window. There may be up to twelve affected windows on a helicopter for an estimated cost of up to $4,680 per helicopter and up to $182,520 for the U.S. fleet.
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
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by March 27, 2023.
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2020-20-08, Amendment 39-21264 (85 FR 70955, November 6, 2020).
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0012, dated January 11, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0012).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 5220, Emergency Exits.
This AD was prompted by a report of an emergency exit window that required excessive pushing force to jettison caused by friction between the jettisonable window and the airframe. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent excessive friction between the jettisonable cabin window and the airframe. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could prevent the window from jettisoning, subsequently affecting the evacuation of passengers during an emergency situation.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0012.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a jettisonable window on any helicopter unless the actions required by this AD have been accomplished.
(1) Where EASA AD 2021-0012 requires compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(2) Where EASA AD 2021-0012 refers to its effective date, the effective date of EASA AD 2019-0107, dated May 16, 2019, and the effective date of EASA AD 2020-0061, dated March 17, 2020, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies compliance within 250 flight hours or 6 months for helicopters not operated over water and within 110 flight hours or 6 months for helicopters operated over water, this AD requires compliance within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS) for Group 1 and Group 2 helicopters, as defined in EASA AD 2021-0012.
(4) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies compliance within 25 months, this AD requires compliance within 110 hours TIS.
(5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those parts from service.
(6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters to obtain a technical solution, this AD requires repair done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(7) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies to use tooling, this AD allows the use of equivalent tooling.
(8) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies using a video, this AD does not require using the video.
(9) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0012 does not apply to this AD. Refer to paragraph (b) of this AD for affected FAA AD information.
(10) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD 2021-0012.
Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0012 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Special flight permits are prohibited for flights over water with passengers on board.
(1) The Manager, International Validation 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 International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(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.
For more information about this AD, contact Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0012, dated January 11, 2021.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA AD 2021-0012, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
(5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to remove Very High Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-314 in Maine because the route segments in Canada were cancelled by NavCanada. As a result, the remaining segments in Maine are no longer required for air traffic control (ATC) purposes.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2023.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0215; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-7 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0215; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-7) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0215; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
As published in FAA Order JO 7400.11G, airway V-314 extends from Quebec, Canada to the Millinocket, ME (MLT), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). Previously, NavCanada cancelled the segments of V-314 within Canada as part of their transition to area navigation routes. As a result, V-314 consists of an 83 nautical mile segment from a point on the U.S./Canadian border to the Millinocket VOR/DME. Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) has determined that the remaining route serves no ATC purpose and should be removed.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to remove VOR Federal airway V-314 in Maine. Since NavCanada has cancelled the connecting route segments in Canada, the remaining route is not required for ATC purposes.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The VOR Federal Airway listed in this document would be subsequently removed from 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 proposed 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 Department of Transportation (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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Proposed priority and definition.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority and definition under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act), for Activities for Underserved Populations, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.315C. The purpose of this priority is to make awards to minority entities and Indian Tribes to conduct research, training and technical assistance, and related activities to improve services under the Rehabilitation Act, especially services provided to underserved populations. For this priority, as discussed further in
We must receive your comments on or before March 10, 2023.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6103. Email:
If you are Deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The proposed priority would require applicants to provide training and technical assistance to a minimum of 15 State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies (Combined, General, or Agencies for the Blind) over a five-year period. The Department identified a minimum number of State VR agencies based on factors such as cost, level of effort, scope of the project, duration of the training and technical assistance, and the unique challenges and demographics of State VR agencies. Considering these factors, are there any challenges to providing training and technical assistance to a minimum of 15 State VR agencies over a five-year period? Is it reasonable to provide training and technical assistance to more than 15 State VR agencies and if not, what would be an achievable minimum target over a five-year period? Please provide justification to support your responses, if possible.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. The Department also welcomes comments on any alternative approaches to the subjects addressed by the proposed regulations.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priority and definition by accessing
The purpose of this proposed priority, together with the proposed definition, is to improve the delivery of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services to, and employment outcomes of, individuals with disabilities from underserved populations. The proposed priority would support training and technical assistance for a minimum of 15 State VR agencies (Combined, General, or Agencies for the Blind) over a five-year period so that the agencies are equipped to serve as role models for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workforce system by implementing policies, practices, and service delivery approaches designed to contribute to increasing competitive integrated employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations. Further, the proposed priority would require contributions to VR research and pedagogical practices that promote access to approaches that are racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive.
The proposed priority also incorporates findings, strategies, and recommendations from the Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Targeted Communities
In support of the need for activities for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations, Congress found that “patterns of inequitable treatment of minorities have been documented in all major junctures of the vocational rehabilitation process. As compared to white Americans, a larger percentage of African-American applicants to the vocational rehabilitation system is denied acceptance. Of applicants accepted for service, a larger percentage of African-American cases is closed without being rehabilitated. Minorities are provided less training than their white counterparts. Consistently, less money is spent on minorities than on their white counterparts” (Section 21(a)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended).
Data from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 911
To address any inequities in the VR system and better enable individuals with disabilities from underserved populations to access the VR resources needed to secure competitive integrated employment and reach future goals, under the priority, a grantee would be required to work with a minimum of 15 State VR agencies to examine and analyze data between VR program participants from underserved populations and VR program participants who are not from underserved populations from eligibility determination to exit. The information gathered would inform training and technical assistance activities designed for each identified State agency. In developing training and technical assistance activities, applicants are encouraged to consider relevant strategies identified in the Targeted Communities project. For example, several Targeted Communities sites identified Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) as a strategy to gain an understanding of a community's unique issues and concerns. The methodology behind CBPR is predicated on deep and extensive community involvement in identifying and resolving issues and concerns. State VR agencies may benefit from training and technical assistance activities that use data and information gathered about employment outcomes for underserved populations to inform outreach, build trust in the communities they are serving, and increase competitaive integrated employment opportunities.
VR professionals play a critical role in ensuring equity in the workforce system as well as VR participant success. A diverse VR workforce benefits all individuals with disabilities, and counselor diversity in particular can improve competitive integrated employment outcomes for underserved populations. Within the comparative field of mental health, research indicates a significant correlation between race concordance and quality of care for underserved populations. Race concordance occurs when patients and providers have a shared racial or ethnic identity (Coates et al., 2022). In a 2021 study conducted by Georgetown University researchers, 47 parents of Black patients with mental health disabilities were surveyed to determine preferences regarding race concordance. According to the study, 83 percent of all survey participants preferred race concordance and believed it was important for providers to be of the same race or ethnicity as their patients. The study found that participants with a race concordance preference felt enhanced comfort and safety, relatability, and cultural understanding when patients and providers shared the same race or ethnicity. Participants also attributed race concordance to enhanced feelings of trustworthiness and mutual respect, which led to progress in mental health treatment. This study indicates that the commonality of race or ethnicity between provider and patient of underserved populations improves quality of care. VR consumers from underserved populations would benefit from a diverse pool of VR counselors. Through the proposed priority, we seek to strengthen the diversity of the VR workforce to enhance the delivery of VR services for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations.
State VR agencies are an essential resource, providing and connecting individuals with disabilities with resources and referrals they need to meet their full potential. It is vital that individuals with disabilities from underserved populations have equitable access to education, job training, and other community resources to achieve competitive integrated employment outcomes. These needs are best met through cross-agency coordination and partnerships between State VR agencies, community rehabilitation providers, educational institutions, and other service-oriented organizations in the community. The proposed priority would require grantees to establish or build on existing cross—agency partnerships, community and faith-based partnerships, and partnerships with local nonprofit organizations and business and philanthropic organizations to communicate the use and benefits of VR services and support pathways to education and employment. We believe such effective partnerships can strengthen community vitality and support long-term change. In the Targeted Communities project, six sites identified a community outreach and orientation strategy to increase referrals for VR services from community-based organizations and applications from individuals with disabilities. Strengthened community partnerships led to formalized agreements between partner agencies and, as a result, led to formalized agreements between VR and partner sites.
For these reasons, the Department proposes a priority that would expand promising and effective practices for serving individuals with disabilities from underserved populations and provide training and technical assistance that may be replicated and sustained across State VR agencies and incorporated into rehabilitation counseling programs. By creating a culture of shared responsibility, accountability, and inclusivity within State VR agencies, the proposed priority is designed to strengthen the delivery of services to individuals with disabilities from underserved populations and increase competitive integrated employment outcomes.
To ensure a common understanding of the proposed priority, we propose to define “underserved populations” to mean Black, Latino, and Indigenous (including Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians) and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color. This definition focuses on the racial and ethnic characteristics of underserved populations because the program authority under which the funding is appropriated is based on Congressional findings regarding the inequitable
We propose this definition to clarify that the purpose and intent of this activity under 29 U.S.C. 718(b)(2)(B) is to make awards “to minority entities and Indian Tribes to conduct research, training and technical assistance, and related activities to improve services under the Rehabilitation Act, especially services provided to individuals from minority backgrounds.”
Nothing in the proposed priority or definition would alter an applicant's or grantee's obligations to comply with nondiscrimination requirements in Federal civil rights laws.
Under this priority, the Department provides funding for a cooperative agreement for a minority entity or an Indian Tribe to provide training and technical assistance to a minimum of 15 State VR agencies (Combined, General, or Agencies for the Blind) over a five-year period of performance so that the agencies are equipped to serve as role models for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workforce system by implementing policies, practices, and service delivery approaches that are designed to contribute to increasing competitive integrated employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations. Further, the grantee must contribute to VR research and pedagogical practices that promote access to approaches that are racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive.
During the first year of the project the grantee will focus on developing training and technical assistance material and gathering input and feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders including RSA, State VR agencies, and other relevant partners. During the period of performance, the grantee must enter into agreements with the State VR agencies receiving training and technical assistance. Each agreement must: specify the level of involvement from VR agency leadership and personnel and include an assurance that the VR agency is committed to sustainable systems change across the organization for improving delivery of services to underserved populations; explain how data will be collected and shared; identify training and technical assistance needs, intervention strategies, and implementation timelines; and describe how outcomes will be measured. The grantee must have a minimum of two agreements in place by the end of the first year of the grant.
To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must, at a minimum, propose a project that will conduct the following activities in a culturally appropriate manner. The Department encourages innovative approaches to meet this requirement. To meet this requirement, applicants must—
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Proposed Project,” an understanding of the inequalities and challenges experienced by individuals with disabilities from underserved populations determined eligible to receive VR services. To meet this requirement, applicants must—
(1) Present information and relevant data about the disparities that exist with respect to VR services and employment outcomes for underserved populations; and
(2) Describe how the project proposes to improve VR services for, and competitive integrated employment outcomes of, underserved populations.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Design,” how the project will address inequalities and challenges experienced by underserved populations determined eligible to receive VR services. To meet this requirement, applicants must—
(1) Demonstrate knowledge and experience working with individuals with disabilities from underserved populations;
(2) Incorporate into the project design current research and promising and evidence-based practices (EBPs),
(3) Detail how the project will collect and examine data, including from the RSA-911 and other relevant sources, from a minimum of 15 State VR agencies regarding VR applicants, VR-eligible individuals, and VR participants by race/ethnicity by:
(i) Exploring patterns, changes, or shifts in demographics for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations;
(ii) Explore data, by race/ethnicity, from each State VR agency regarding VR applicants to identify opportunities for increased outreach to and referral of individuals with disabilities from underserved populations to VR services;
(iii) Examining data, by race/ethnicity, from each State VR agency regarding selected VR services and competitive integrated employment outcomes at exit to identify inconsistencies or gaps in the provision of services;
(iv) Examining data from each State VR agency to identify reasons for successful and unsuccessful closures between VR program participants from underserved populations and VR program participants who are not from underserved populations; and
(v) Reviewing each State VR agency's service delivery model from eligibility determination to exit; and
(4) Present approaches for how the information and data described above will be used to inform strategies to improve the delivery of services to individuals with disabilities from underserved populations for each of the identified State VR agencies. For example, applicants may consider conducting a needs assessment and asset map for each of the identified State VR agencies to identify existing programs and services and businesses and philanthropic organizations in the community, as well as potential gaps and opportunities for collaboration, to support individuals with disabilities from underserved populations in successfully obtaining competitive integrated employment. Applicants may also consider designing a long-term data collection tool and provide analytical support and training to the identified State VR agencies to identify additional data elements not captured in the RSA-911 or other case management systems to continually assess the quality of services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations and individuals with disabilities not from underserved populations.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the project will be designed so that policies, practices, and service delivery approaches will contribute to increased competitive integrated employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations. To meet this requirement, applicants must—
(1) Propose training and technical assistance activities that will be offered to the identified State VR agencies. Training and technical assistance activities will be further developed during the first year of the grant and described in the agreements with the identified State VR agencies based on needs and analysis of data. Training and technical assistance activities may include, but are not limited to, (i) assisting in State VR agency coordination and cross-agency partnerships with State and local agencies and community-based organizations, workforce programs, educational institutions, and other relevant local community agencies and organizations (
(2) Detail how those activities will incorporate relevant strategies and promising and effective practices identified by the Targeted Communities Project and other EBPs or related sources, to the extent possible;
(3) Explain how training and technical assistance activities will be of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the project;
(4) Describe how remote learning
(5) Describe their knowledge, skills, and experience to support the training and technical assistance activities described above;
(6) Describe how the project will contribute to VR research and pedagogical practices that promote access to approaches that are racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive. To meet this requirement, applicants must describe how they will—
(i) Disseminate to all State VR agencies, RSA-funded Rehabilitation Long-Term Training projects and TA Centers, Department-funded programs, and Federal partners, as applicable, training and technical assistance material, analysis of data collected, evidence-based and promising practices, and lessons learned;
(ii) Develop products, such as toolkits, guides, manuals, webinars, and communities of learning, for instructors, facilitators, State VR agency directors, and human resource and professional development specialists to facilitate the implementation of training and technical assistance material in curriculum and relevant training and development activities; and
(iii) Gather input and feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders and subject matter experts, including RSA, State VR agencies, and other relevant partners, throughout the project to inform the development and delivery of the material described above.
(d) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project. The evaluation plan must describe—
(1) Clear and measurable outcomes;
(2) Approaches for measuring the effectiveness of the intervention strategies identified in the agreements, including standards and targets for measuring knowledge, skills, and abilities of State VR agency personnel before and after completion of training activities. To address this requirement, applicants must provide an approach for determining—
(i) The most effective practices in improving the delivery of services to individuals with disabilities from underserved populations and the data that demonstrate the effectiveness of the practices; and
(ii) The most effective practices in creating a culture of systems change within the State VR agency and the data that demonstrate the effectiveness of the practices;
(3) Methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses, that will be used to evaluate the project and how the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate whether the project activities achieved their intended outcomes;
(4) How the evaluation will be coordinated, implemented, and revised, as needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at least one individual with sufficient dedicated time, demonstrated experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to coordinate and conduct the evaluation. This may include, but is not limited to, making revisions to reflect any changes or clarifications, as needed, to the model and to the evaluation design and instrumentation with the logic model (
(5) How evaluation results will be used to improve delivery of services to VR program participants from underserved populations from eligibility determination to exit. To address this requirement, applicants must provide an approach to gather input and feedback that includes the experiences of VR program participants from underserved populations. Applicants may consider voluntary focus groups, use of a unique identifier, or another approach that adheres to consumer confidentiality requirements in 34 CFR 361.38; and
(6) A process for gathering feedback from the identified State VR agencies for continuous improvement throughout years two, three, four, and five of the project.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how applicants will ensure that—
(1) The project's intended outcomes, including the evaluation, will be achieved on time and within budget through—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities of key project personnel, subawards, and contracts, as applicable;
(ii) Procedures to track and ensure completion of the action steps, timelines, and milestones established for key project activities, requirements, and deliverables;
(iii) Internal monitoring processes to ensure that the project is being implemented in accordance with the established application and management plan; and
(iv) Internal financial management controls to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes, and how the applicant will ensure accurate and timely obligations, drawdowns, and reporting of grant funds, as well as monitoring subawards as applicable, in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 and the terms and conditions of the Federal award;
(2) The allocation of key project personnel, subawards, as applicable, and levels of effort of key personnel are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The products and services are of high quality, relevance, and usefulness, in both content and delivery and are accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as applicable;
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives; and
(5) Projects will be awarded and operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal civil rights laws.
(f) Include the following:
(1) In Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;
(2) In Appendix A, a logic model
(3) An assurance to maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design that is accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as applicable; and
(4) An assurance that training and technical assistance materials such as outreach, training curricula, presentations, reports, outcomes, and other relevant information will be submitted to RSA's National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials (NCRTM) (
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
We will announce the final priority and definition in a document in the
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines whether this
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
OMB has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this proposed priority and definition only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify the costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that maximizes net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
The potential costs associated with this priority and definition would be minimal, while the potential benefits are significant. The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs on eligible entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory action would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The potential benefits of implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with the application would be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation would not be burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive Orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background section of this document.
The proposed priority contains information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the proposed priority does not affect the currently approved data collection.
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priority and definition easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would affect are minority entities and Indian Tribes that may apply. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the proposed priority and definition would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of the proposed priority and definition would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. We also
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania nonattainment area (NAA) has attained the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2023.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0307 at
Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center—1600 JFK Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2176. Mr. Rehn can also be reached via electronic mail at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has established NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established. EPA established these standards after considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious adverse health effects are associated with exposures to these criteria pollutants.
Particulate matter includes particles with diameters that are generally 2.5 microns or smaller (PM
On July 18, 1997, EPA first established annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM
The CAA requires states to develop a SIP that provides generally for the attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, the CAA requires states to make a plan submittal to address nonattainment planning requirements of the CAA. This plan SIP submittal (also referred to as an attainment plan) imposes additional controls for purposes of attaining the PM
The general CAA part D nonattainment area planning requirements are found in subpart 1 and the specific nonattainment area planning requirements for particulate matter are found in subpart 4. The subpart 1 statutory requirements for attainment plans include the following: section 172(c)(1) requirements for reasonably available control measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT) and attainment demonstrations; the section 172(c)(2) requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); the section 172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories; the section 172(c)(5) requirements for a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting program; and the section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures.
The more specific subpart 4 statutory requirements for Moderate PM
Under CAA subpart 4, section 188(c)(1) establishes that states with Moderate PM
To implement the PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required under CAA section 107(d) to designate regions throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining these NAAQS. Those regions found not to be attaining the NAAQS are also given a classification that describes the degree of nonattainment. Under subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA, EPA designates areas found to be violating the PM
Effective April 15, 2015, EPA designated Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, as a Moderate nonattainment area (Allegheny County Nonattainment Area) for the 2012 PM
Sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the CAA require EPA to determine whether a PM
The 2012 primary annual PM
The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) is the governmental agency with the primary authority and responsibility under the Commonwealth's laws for collecting ambient air quality data for the Allegheny County PM
In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, ACHD certifies annually that the previous year's ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings.
By a letter to EPA dated April 12, 2022, ACHD certified its 2021 ambient air quality monitoring data. EPA issued final 2019-2021 design values on May 25, 2022.
As shown in Table 1 in this document, all ambient air monitors in the Allegheny County area except for the North Park monitor site have complete 2019-2021 reporting data capture rates of at least 75%. The North Park monitor site [Monitor ID 420030093] had a fourth quarter 2020 capture rate of 13%. The North Park monitor site was approved for shut down in the third quarter of 2021 in ACHD's “Annual Monitoring Plan for Calendar Year 2021.” The data capture rates for the North Park monitor for the 2019-2021 period are shown in Table 2 in this document.
As described in section II.A in this document, the 2012 annual PM
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58, EPA has reviewed the PM
In summary, based on the relevant monitoring network plans, data completeness, and data certifications, we propose to find that the PM
Under CAA section 188(c)(2), EPA is required to determine within six months of the applicable attainment date whether a nonattainment area attained the standard by that deadline. The 2012 annual PM
Table 1 in this document provides the 2021 PM
Consequently, EPA proposes to determine, based upon three years of complete, certified data from 2019 through 2021 (that has been both quality-assured and quality-controlled) that the Allegheny County nonattainment area attained the 2012 annual PM
Pursuant to CAA section 188(c)(2), EPA is proposing to determine, based on the most recent three years (2019-2021) of valid air monitoring data, that the Allegheny County nonattainment area has attained the 2012 annual PM
This proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date does not constitute a redesignation to attainment of the NAAQS. Upon a final determination of attainment by the Moderate attainment date, Allegheny County will remain nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM
EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed determination of attainment. All received comments will be considered prior to EPA final action.
This rulemaking action proposes a determination for attainment of the 2012 PM
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date for the Allegheny County area by the December 31, 2021 Moderate attainment date for the 2012 annual PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's proceeding by Al Kramer and Cheryl A. Leanza, on behalf of United Church of Christ, OC Inc. and Public Knowledge, Glenn S. Richards and Lee G. Petro, on behalf of NCIC Inmate Communications, Karen Quinones and Kari Cooke, on behalf of Mayor's Office of Deaf, DeafBlind, & Hard of Hearing, and David A. O'Connor, on behalf of Hamilton Relay, Inc.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 23, 2023. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 6, 2023.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC, 20554.
Michael Scott, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1264, email:
This is a summary of the FCC's Public Notice, DA 23-81, Report No. 3192, released January 27, 2023. The full text of the FCC's Public Notice is available at:
Office of Safety, Security and Protection, Department of Agriculture.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Office of Safety, Security and Protection's (OSSP) intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Request for USDA Identification (ID) Badge, the USDA Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) program. HSPD-12 establishes a mandatory, Government-wide standard for secure and reliable forms of identification (credentials) issued by the Federal Government to its Federal Employees, Non-Federal employees, and contractors. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mandated that these credentials be issued to all Federal Government employees, contractors, and other applicable individuals who require long-term access to federally controlled facilities and/or information systems. The HSPD-12 compliant program is jointly owned and administered by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and OSSP.
Office of Safety, Security and Protection invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments on this notice must be received by April 10, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Contact Sam Willis, Director, Facility Protection Division, Office of Safety, Security and Protection U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 1434, Washington, DC 20250, 202-378-5830.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is an existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number in which we are seeking approval to establish a process for requesting a waiver from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to offer SNAP recipients incentives at SNAP authorized retailer locations that encourage them to purchase healthier foods. This collection burden only affects SNAP retailers as well as private organizations or governmental entities who partner with SNAP retailers. There are no data collection activities for SNAP households in this request.
Written comments must be received on or before April 10, 2023.
The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested persons to submit written comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
•
•
All responses to this notice summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Marga Ortiz at 703-305-2546.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information 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 that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Farmer's markets are also already authorized to provide incentives to SNAP recipients under a blanket FNS waiver of the SNAP equal treatment provision, specifically for farmers' markets. Only incentive projects that are funded outside of a Federal grant, other than projects funded by farmers' markets, are required to have a waiver from FNS to provide incentives to SNAP households at authorized SNAP retailer locations. FNS provided incentive waivers to SNAP retailers prior to passage of the 2018 Farm Bill under FNS' regular waiver process and has been providing the waivers under a streamlined approach since 2020. Over the past 3 years, FNS has received an average of nine incentive waiver requests that generally cover multiple retailer locations, and we expect those numbers to increase over the next 5 years. With this new streamlined process, the Department estimates that out of 254,350 authorized retailers that participate in our program, approximately 730 different retailers would be covered under 15 different incentive waiver requests annually. In general, the waivers are granted for three years.
The process for requesting a waiver involves utilizing a form on FNS' website that is directly fillable online and automatically sent to FNS through the website. The information a retailer must submit includes:
1. Requestor Information;
2. Dates of Operation;
3. Retailer location(s), including the FNS number, name, and address of each participating retailer;
4. Foods being incentivized;
5. Description of the incentive model; and
6. The goal of the incentive program.
The Department has identified and outlined the activity and the estimated burden hours associated with submitting a SNAP Retailer Incentive Waiver Request.
See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
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 Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a meeting on Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Central Time. The purpose for the meeting is to discuss the proposal for their project on the effects of the pandemic on education in the state.
The meetings will take place on: Wednesday, February 22, 2023, from 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Central Time.
Registration Link:
Victoria Moreno at
This meeting is available to the public through the Zoom link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines and 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 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at
Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
On December 7, 2022, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting an expansion of Subzone 18G subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18, on behalf of Tesla, Inc., in Oakland, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain steel nails from Malaysia were sold at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
Applicable February 8, 2023.
John Drury or Emily Bradshaw, 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) 482-0195 and (202) 482-3956.
On August 5, 2022, Commerce published the
The products covered by the scope of the order are certain steel nails from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by interested parties in this review are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached as Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
In the
Based on the comments received from interested parties regarding our
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted
In this review, we preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Inmax and Region that are not zero,
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results within five days after the date of the public announcement of these final results, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were
For the companies identified in Appendix II that were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rates established in these final results of review.
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by any of these companies for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221.
Comment 1: Adverse Facts Available (AFA) with Respect to Cost of Production
Comment 2: AFA with Respect to Labor and Electricity Costs
Comment 3: Correction of the Difference-In-Merchandise Calculation
Comment 4: Quarterly Costs
Comment 5: Correction to Draft Liquidation Instructions
Comment 6: Application of AFA With Respect to Unreliable Cost Information
Comment 7: Interest Expense Ratio
Comment 8: Ministerial Error Allegations
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency review and approval 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.
Information to be collected includes:
• Name of applicant organization and contact information.
• Estimated date of submission of a pre-application.
• Basic project information, which will be elicited through multiple-choice questions and specific fields in the statement of interest form, including nature of project and potential scope.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 15 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering the title of the collection.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency review and approval 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.
The CHIPS External Affairs Office (EA) plans to collect requests for CHIPS meetings via a web portal. The information will be used by EA to schedule and coordinate meetings with CHIPS stakeholders. The CHIPS meeting request form will be a valuable resource for potential CHIPS Incentives applicants who are interested in learning more about the CHIPS program and how they can apply for CHIPS Incentive funding. Data elements include: basic customer information, including name, affiliation, and email address, as well as details on who they would like to meet with and when, and CHIPS-related topics they would like to discuss.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within three days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering the title of the collection.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup (EWG) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Wednesday, March 1, 2023, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., or until business for the day is completed.
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Council's website (see
Kit Dahl, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
This online meeting will comprise of two sessions. During the first session members of NOAA's California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Team will brief Council advisory body members and interested public on the contents of the 2022-23 California Current Ecosystem Status Report. During the second session the EWG will brief Council advisory body members and interested public on the work plan it is developing for the Fishery Ecosystem Plan Initiative on Ecosystem and Climate Information for Species, Fisheries, and Fishery Management Plans. This work plan will be presented to the Council for its consideration at its March 5-10, 2023, meeting. The EWG also may discuss other items related to items on future Council agendas.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; notification of quota for bowhead whales.
NMFS notifies the public of the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for bowhead whales assigned to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), and of limitations on the use of the quota deriving from regulations of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2023, the quota is 93 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other applicable limitations govern the harvest of bowhead whales by whaling captains of the AEWC.
Applicable February 8, 2023.
Mi Ae Kim, (301) 427-8365.
Aboriginal subsistence whaling in the United States is governed by the Whaling Convention Act (WCA) (16 U.S.C. 916
At the 67th Meeting of the IWC, the Commission set catch limits for aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The bowhead and other aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits were based on a joint request by Denmark on behalf of Greenland, the Russian Federation, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States, accompanied by documentation concerning the needs of the Native groups.
The IWC set a 7-year block catch limit of 392 bowhead whales landed. For each of the years 2019 through 2025, the number of bowhead whales struck may not exceed 67, with unused strikes from the 3 prior quota blocks carried forward and added to the annual strike quota of subsequent years, provided that no more than 50 percent of the annual strike limit is added to the strike quota for any one year. For the 2023 harvest, there are 33 strikes available for carry-forward, so the combined strike quota set by the IWC for 2023 is 100 (67 + 33).
An arrangement between the United States and the Russian Federation ensures that the total quota of bowhead whales landed and struck in 2023 will not exceed the limits set by the IWC. Under this arrangement, the Russian natives may use no more than 7 strikes, and the Alaska natives may use no more than 93 strikes.
Through its cooperative agreement with the AEWC, NOAA has assigned 93 strikes to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. The AEWC will in turn allocate these strikes among the 11 villages whose cultural and subsistence needs have been documented, and will ensure that AEWC whaling captains use no more than 93 strikes.
At its 67th Meeting, the IWC also provided for automatic renewal of aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits under certain circumstances. Commencing in 2026, bowhead whale catch limits shall be extended every 6 years provided: (a) the IWC Scientific Committee advises in 2024, and every 6 years thereafter, that such limits will not harm the stock; (b) the Commission does not receive a request from the United States or the Russian Federation for a change in the bowhead whale catch limits based on need; and (c) the Commission determines that the United States and the Russian Federation have complied with the IWC's approved timeline and that the information provided represents a status quo continuation of the hunts.
The IWC regulations, as well as the NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), forbid the taking of calves or any whale accompanied by a calf.
NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) also contain other prohibitions relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling, some of which are summarized here:
• No person, other than licensed whaling captains or crew under the control of those captains, may engage in aboriginal subsistence whaling.
• No AEWC whaling captain shall engage in whaling that is not in accordance with the regulations of the IWC, NOAA, and the cooperative agreement between NOAA and the AEWC.
• No whaling captain shall engage in whaling without an adequate crew or without adequate supplies and equipment.
• Crew may not receive money for participating in the hunt.
• No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales taken in the hunt, except for authentic articles of Native American handicrafts.
• Captains may not continue to whale after the relevant quota is taken, after the season has been closed, or if their licenses have been suspended.
• They may not engage in whaling in a wasteful manner.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting. See
The meeting will be held on Friday, February 24, 2023, from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information will be posted to the calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive
The purpose of the meeting is for the Advisory Panel to create a Fishery Performance Report that includes advisor input on related specifications and management measures (primarily focused on the
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
1:00 p.m. EST, Wednesday, February 15, 2023.
CFTC headquarters office, Washington, DC.
Closed.
Enforcement matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) is requesting to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for an existing information collection titled “Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X)” approved under OMB Control Number 3170-0016.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before April 10, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Anthony May, PRA Officer, at (202) 435-7278, or email:
Regulation X requires these information collections. However, to the extent that compliance with requirements in Regulation Z
Office of English Language Acquisition, Department of Education.
Request for information.
The Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) provides national leadership to help ensure that English learners, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency and achieve academic success. Additionally, OELA is committed to preserving heritage languages and cultures and promoting opportunities for biliteracy or multiliteracy skills for all students. Through this request for information (RFI), OELA seeks public input to help the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) discover what practices are currently being used to recruit, hire, train, and retain interpreters and translators
We must receive your comments on or before March 27, 2023.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
This is an RFI only. This RFI is not a request for proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a notice inviting applications. This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, we are not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI. The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
Melissa Escalante, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-8385. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Interpreters and translators currently work in educational settings across the United States, and they play a critical role within schools and educational settings in relaying important, accurate written or oral information to educators and parents or legal guardians.
Despite the consistent need for interpreters and translators in high stakes meetings that impact students' educational experiences and paths to success, there is not an established set of common industry standards for interpreters and translators in the field of education. Without common standards, it is unclear how many interpreters and translators within the education community have training, experience, and certification in fields related to language services.
OELA's stakeholders within the educational community have expressed concerns that the communication that takes place between educators, students, parents, families, and legal guardians may be adversely impacted if an interpreter or translator is not prepared to navigate the intricacies of “student pathway to success” meetings (
The Department is interested in learning what practices, methods, standards, and procedures are being used by States and districts to recruit, hire, train, and retain interpreters and translators who are familiar with and skilled in educational settings. OELA is interested in compiling this information and furthering the conversation regarding interpreters and translators to help support all students to succeed academically.
We will review every comment, and, as described above, electronic comments in response to this RFI will be publicly available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
OELA invites stakeholders who are aware of policies and practices that are specifically relevant to interpreters and translators in all education settings across States, districts, and schools to address the questions below in their comments.
1. What are the standards and practices used for selecting interpreters and translators?
2. What technical support activities related to interpretation and translation can you identify and share? Are the technical support activities consistent across the State or districts?
3. Under what circumstances are interpreter and translator services utilized? What types of tasks, activities, or situations are interpreter and translator services used for? Examples might include oral and written communication related to school events or student services, parent-teacher conferences, and programs implemented to identify English language learners, IEP or 504 meetings.
4. How are interpreters and translators staffed by the school or program? Are they permanent employees who are either on-site or available as needed, or are they acquired through a service contract and available on demand?
5. How are interpreter and translator services funded?
6. When and how do districts determine if a translator or interpreter is needed?
7. What written policies do you rely on regarding interpreter and translator services? What policies, if any, are there on standards or practices at the State or district level?
8. What research, if any, was used to draft policies and procedures related to interpretation and translation?
9. What training is required for initial certification as well as for maintaining the certification of interpreters and translators?
10. What trainings are provided to school staff or volunteers to facilitate the coordination of interpreter and translator services for families and students?
11. What data, if any, can you share on the use of interpreters and translators? For example, how often are the services requested by school staff or students, parents, or legal guardians? How are the services categorized? Are the services primarily oral, written, or both?
Commenters are encouraged to include written policies and procedures used by schools, districts, or States.
The Department is committed to improving the public's access to, and the discoverability of, education research. In service of that goal, we encourage responders to share any publications with us, and we invite authors, those who hold copyright, or their authorized representatives to consider depositing eligible content into ERIC, the Institute of Education Sciences' bibliographic and full-text database of education research (
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
The Department of Education is committed to making its publications available to all members of the public. If you have difficulty understanding English, you may, free of charge, request language assistance services for Department information by calling 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), or email us at
Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the charter for the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC) will undergo a major amendment and DPAC will be renamed the Advisory Committee for Nuclear Security (ACNS or the Committee). The charter is being renewed for a two-year period.
The ACNS will provide advice and recommendations to the Department of Energy's Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) on the activities and operations of the NNSA, including but not limited to, the stewardship, governance, and maintenance of the Nation's nuclear deterrent; nuclear security; nonproliferation; counterterrorism; counterproliferation; and nuclear incident and accident response.
The renewal of the Committee has been deemed essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in conjunction with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law and agreement. The Committee will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
Watti Hill, Office of Defense Programs at (202) 586-8266; email:
This document of the Department of Energy (DOE) was signed on February 3, 2023, by Shena Kennerly, Acting Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Wyre Wynd Hydroelectric Project and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project is located on the Quinebaug River in New London and Windham Counties, Connecticut. No federal land is occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.
The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Kristine Sillett at (202) 502-6575 or
On January 23, 2023, Brainerd Public Utilities submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Minnesota PCA), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,
If the Minnesota PCA fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA), that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG) Amendment (Amendment). If authorized, the Amendment would allow additional workspace (a parking/laydown area) and increase both the traffic volume and work week/hour limits associated with the construction of its terminal in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana from that analyzed in the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Plaquemines LNG Project (Docket Nos. CP17-66-000 and CP17-67-000), which the Commission authorized on September 30, 2019. The proposed Amendment would increase construction to 24 hours per day and 7 days a week for select activities at the Plaquemines LNG Terminal. The Commission will use the EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Amendment is in the public interest.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the Amendment. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of an authorization. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process section of this notice.
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 6, 2023. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the EA.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Amendment. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed Amendment and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP17-66-001) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The FERC website (
Plaquemines LNG proposes to increase the peak workforce from its current 3,600 personnel up to 6,000 personnel per day, increase traffic volumes, and implement a 24-hours-per-day, 7-days-per-week construction schedule for select activities. In addition, Plaquemines LNG is seeking approval for an additional 50-acre parking/laydown area referred to as the State Highway (SH) 23 Yard. Plaquemines LNG indicates that the SH23 Yard is required to accommodate the parking and laydown needs associated with the increase in construction workforce. Plaquemines LNG anticipates completing the Plaquemines LNG Project in 2025.
The general location of the Plaquemines LNG Project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The request does not involve the construction of any new facilities nor any modification of the previously authorized facilities at the Plaquemines LNG Terminal site. New land requirements would be limited to the 50-acre parking/laydown area at the proposed SH23 Yard. The proposed scope of work for site development includes the placement of fill material to raise the SH23 Yard by 4 feet and application of crushed stone or gravel to facilitate parking. The SH23 Yard would also require new driveway connections to SH23.
The EA issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Amendment under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use and visual resources;
• socioeconomics and traffic;
• environmental justice; and
• air quality and noise.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Amendment or portions of the Amendment and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the EA.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will prepare an EA to present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. The EA may be issued for an allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed Amendment. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this Amendment to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Amendment's potential effects on
On January 6, 2023, the Commission issued its Notice of Application for the Amendment. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Amendment.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an EA for the Amendment and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Amendment's progress.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Amendment and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Amendment.
(1) Send an email to
OR
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the Amendment is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the 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 the schedule for processing the following hydroelectric application has been modified.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Michael Tust at (202) 502-6522 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
As first announced in the Commission's January 5, 2023 Notice in the above-captioned docket,
The meeting will be open to the public for listening and observing and on the record. There is no fee for attendance and registration is not required. The public may attend in person or via Webcast.
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
More information about the Task Force, including frequently asked questions, is available here:
For more information about this Notice, please contact: Gretchen
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The federal agencies invited to cooperate above and any other federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the filing instructions described in item m below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene.
l. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Native-American Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Native-American Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
m. Deadline under 42 U.S.C. 4370m-2(a)(2)(B) for responses from the specific federal agencies invited to cooperate in item k: February 16, 2023.
Deadline for filing additional study requests and deadline for agencies, other than the specific federal agencies invited to cooperate in item k, to file requests for cooperating agency status: March 19, 2023.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
n. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
o. The proposed pumped storage project would use the Bureau of Reclamation's Seminoe Reservoir as its lower reservoir and the following existing facilities: an approximately 3.35-mile-long maintenance road for accessing the upper reservoir site and an approximately 0.5-mile-long maintenance road adjacent to the eastern shoreline of Seminoe Reservoir that would be used for accessing facilities connected to Seminoe Reservoir. Both of these roads are
The water used to initially fill the new upper reservoir and provide make-up water would come from Seminoe Reservoir. The initial volume of water necessary to fill the upper reservoir is estimated to be 13,300 acre-feet and would be filled over a two- to four-week period. It is estimated that the project would need approximately 272 acre-feet of water each year to replenish water lost through evaporation and seepage. Once the upper reservoir is filled, approximately 10,800 acre-feet could be cycled between the upper reservoir and Seminoe Reservoir each day. The project is designed to generate electricity on demand for up to 9.7 hours each day at the maximum generating capacity. The estimated annual generation is 2,916 gigawatt-hours per year.
p. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
You may also register online at
q.
r. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis
Take notice that on January 23, 2023, Viking Gas Transmission Company (Viking) 100 West 5th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.211
Specifically, Viking is proposing to build its Line MNB2204C (the Project), in Polk County, Minnesota and Grand Forks County, North Dakota. Viking proposes to: (i) construct 13.2 miles of 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline that runs from Viking's mainline to the East Grand Forks, Minnesota Meter Station (MN Meter Station); (ii) construct 0.8 mile of 12-inch-diameter pipeline from the new Grand Forks, North Dakota Launcher Site (ND Launcher Site) to a new meter station in Grand Forks, North Dakota; and (iii) relocate and upsize a meter from the MN Meter Station to the ND Launcher Site. Minor auxiliary facilities installations and modifications will also be made pursuant to section 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Denise Adams, Director, Regulatory Affairs ONEOK, Inc., 100 West 5th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, by telephone at (918) 732-1408, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2023. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
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
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before April 3, 2023. 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.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP23-40-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP23-40-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Denise Adams, Director, Regulatory Affairs, 100 West 5th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, or by email at
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) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), National Water Quality Inventory Reports (EPA ICR Number 1560.13, OMB Control Number 2040-0071) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed 3-year extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2023. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before March 10, 2023.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2003-0026, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Edward Laird, Watershed Restoration, Assessment and Protection Division (WRAPD), Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Mail Code: 4503T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2848; fax number: 202-566-1437; email address:
This is a proposed 3-year extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2023. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
During the period covered by this ICR renewal, respondents will: complete their 2024 Section 305(b) reports and 2024 Section 303(d) lists; complete their 2026 Section 305(b) reports and 2026 Section 303(d) lists; transmit annual electronic updates of ambient monitoring data via the Water Quality Exchange; and continue to develop TMDLs according to their established schedules. EPA will prepare biennial updates on assessed and impaired waters for Congress and the public for the 2024 reporting cycle and for the 2026 cycle, and EPA will review 303(d) list and TMDL submissions from respondents.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions (EPA ICR Number 2243.10, OMB Control Number 2020-0033) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 23, 2023. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before March 10, 2023.
Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OA-2019-0296, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Candi Schaedle, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities, Mail Code 2501G, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-6121; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 23, 2023. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) will hold its meetings on the following dates throughout 2023, unless otherwise noted.
Unless otherwise noted, FASAB meetings begin at 9 a.m. and conclude before 5 p.m. and are held at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Building at 441 G St. NW, in Room 7C13. The February meeting will be held virtually.
Agendas, briefing materials, and teleconference information for virtual meetings will be available at
Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public. GAO Building security requires advance notice of your attendance. If you wish to attend a FASAB meeting, please register on our website at
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues related to the following topics:
Notice is hereby given that a portion of each scheduled meeting may be closed to the public. The Appointments Panel, a subcommittee of FASAB that makes recommendations to the Board regarding appointments for non-federal member positions, is expected to meet during each meeting. A portion of each Appointments Panel meeting will be closed to the public. The reason for the closures is that matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) will be discussed. Any such discussions will involve matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the sponsor agencies and the disclosure of information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such discussions will be segregated into separate discussions so that a portion of each meeting will be open to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), portions of advisory committee meetings may be closed to the public where the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines that such portion of such meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. The determination shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for the determination. A determination has been made in writing by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget, as required by section 10(d) of FACA, that such portions of the meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 10, 2023. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Correction of Notice.
This document corrects a typographical error in a summary of the above-captioned public notice that was published at FR ID 123272.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
You may contact Christi Shewman, Designated Federal Officer, at
In the
This correction amends the Agency Docket Number published on January 20, 2023 at FR ID 123272 in the summary of the Federal Communication Commission's
In the Agency Docket Number, replace “23-01” with “23-1”.
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
Federal Maritime Commission.
The order directing Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. to show cause was issued on February 3, 2023.
Notice of Order of Directing Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. to show cause.
On February 3, 2023, the Federal Maritime Commission issued an Order Directing Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. (MSC) to show cause entitled Mediterranean Shipping Company—Investigation for Compliance with 46 U.S.C. 41104(a) and 41102 of Demurrage or Detention Charges Under the Charge Complaint Procedures of 46 U.S.C. 41310. Acting pursuant 46 U.S.C. 41310 and 46 CFR 502.91, this investigation is instituted to determine why MSC should not be ordered to refund or waive charges assessed or paid for failure to comply with 46 U.S.C. 41104(a) and 41102.
The Order may be viewed in its entirety at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
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 March 10, 2023.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
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 February 23, 2023.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling (OHIC) Profiles project at ACL.
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by March 10, 2023.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Kristen Robinson,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is currently engaged in an effort to streamline and standardize grantee profiles across three programs managed by the Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling (OHIC): the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP), and Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA). Grantees in each program must adhere to a specific set of reporting requirements and associated reporting schedules outlined in their Program Reporting Guidelines. While
For example, SHIP profiles currently exist; these profiles are accessible to the SHIP grantee network via the program's technical assistance center, and they can be updated directly by grantee states. SMP and MIPPA profiles have yet to be developed. The goal of this data collection effort is to obtain consistent data elements for the three programs that will allow ACL to reimagine the existing profiles into a comparable set of data elements across programs.
These data will allow RTI International, a contractor to ACL, to develop an updated set of grantee profiles that are accessible, visually appealing, and consistent across programs. Specifically, the purpose of this data collection effort is to update the SHIP grantee profiles, which were last updated in 2016, and develop similar profiles for SMP and MIPPA. These profiles will be internal to ACL and will only be shared with grantees.
A web-based questionnaire will be emailed to all 125 grant managers (representing 54 states and territories) electronically via Smartsheet. The collected data will be imported into a dataset and will be used to create program profiles accessible to ACL and grantees.
A notice published in the
ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
A maximum of 125 grantees are expected to respond to the web-based data collection instrument. The approximate burden for pre-data collection preparation is 30 minutes per respondent and approximate burden for form completion is 20 minutes per respondent for a total annual estimate of 103.75 hours. The estimated completion burden includes time to review the instructions, read the questions and complete and responses.
Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to an extension of an existing collection of information related to the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) State Partnership Program.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 10, 2023d.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information by:
(a) Email to
(b) fax to 202.395.5806, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL; or
(c) by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW, Rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.
Elizabeth Leef, (202) 475-2482 or
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, ACL has submitted the following proposed new information collection to OMB for review and clearance.
The purpose of the federal Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) State Partnership Program is to create and strengthen person-centered, culturally competent systems of services and supports that maximize the independence and overall health and well-being of all people with TBI across the lifespan, their family members, and their support networks. The TBI State Partnership Program funds the development and implementation of statewide systems that ensure access to TBI related services, including transitional services, rehabilitation, education and employment, and long-term community support. To best monitor, guide, and support TBI State Partnership Program grantees, ACL requires grantees to report about their activities and outcomes. The simplest, least burdensome and most useful way to accomplish this goal is to require grantees to submit information as part of their required semiannual reports via the proposed electronic data submission instrument (appendix A).
In 1996, the Public Health Service Act was amended “to provide for the conduct of expanded studies and the establishment of innovative programs with respect to traumatic brain injury, and for other purposes” (Pub. L. 104-166). This legislation allowed for the implementation of “grants to States for the purpose of carrying out demonstration projects to improve access to health and other services regarding traumatic brain injury.” The TBI Reauthorization Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-196) allowed the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary to review oversight of the federal TBI
The proposed performance progress reporting (PPR) tool is consistent with both the TBI State Partnership Program's purpose and also ACL's mission. The 2010 Government Performance Results Modernization Act requires federal agencies to develop annual and long-term performance outcome measures and to report on these measures annually. ACL sees the GPRA Modernization Act as an opportunity to document annually the results that are produced through the programs it administers under the authority for the TBI State Partnership Program.
It is the intent and commitment of ACL, in concert with grantees, to use the performance progress reporting tool of GPRAMA to continuously improve its programs and services.
The TBI State Partnership Program grantees have been submitting data using a PRA approved tool since 2000; that tool was revised to create the current proposed PPR tool. Revisions were made to eliminate questions that the majority of grantees could not respond to or created undue burden, make questions clearer, and add questions that were seen valuable to collect.
ACL published a 60-day
The PPR is an extension of a currently approved data collection. Changes were done during the Summer of 2022. Revisions were made to eliminate questions that the majority of grantees could not respond to or created undue burden, make questions clearer, and add questions that were seen valuable to collect.
In August 2022, ACL received feedback through an online meeting with a majority of the TBI State Partnership Program grantees regarding the proposed PPR. Some grantees also provided written feedback. Additional revisions were made to the PPR tool to incorporate feedback received from the grantees.
The questions that were eliminated because grantees could not respond to or created undue burden were regarding: estimated number of people in the states who have experienced a TBI and are getting some kind of Medicaid Home and Community Based services or supports; the types of settings the people were living in when they were screened for a TBI or receiving resource facilitation; how many people were in competitive, integrated employment and/or in school at the time of screening or receiving resource facilitation; and how many people who received resource facilitation were supported through a transition from an institution setting (
The following questions were removed because comparable information is available from other sources: program funds spent on activities; whether grantees are involved in mentoring and workgroup activities; and use of and satisfaction with the services of the technical assistance resource center.
Questions were added to collect more information regarding the advisory boards/councils that are an important component of the TBI SPP grants. The questions added are: characteristics of the advisory board/how structured within a state, regarding what supports are provided to people with TBI that are involved in the advisory boards/councils; how the advisory boards/councils are involved with the grant program; and what it means and the efforts or actions being taken to ensure that the advisory boards/councils are representative (
The annual burden estimates are shown below.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for REMEDE SYSTEM and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device REMEDE SYSTEM. REMEDE SYSTEM is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe central sleep apnea in adult patients. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for REMEDE SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 8,233,987) from Respicardia, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 21, 2020, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of REMEDE SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for REMEDE SYSTEM is 3,685 days. Of this time, 3,289 days occurred during the
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 301 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for SKYRIZI and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biologic product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human biological product, SKYRIZI (risankizumab-rzaa). SKYRIZI is indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for SKYRIZI (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,778,346 and 10,202,448) from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated December 26, 2019, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of SKYRIZI represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for SKYRIZI is 2,582 days. Of this time, 2,216 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 366 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 70 days or 538 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for LOKELMA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biologic product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, LOKELMA (sodium zirconium cyclosilicate). LOKELMA is indicated for the treatment of hyperkalemia in adults. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for LOKELMA (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,802,152 and 8,808,750) from ZS Pharma Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated June 21, 2019, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of LOKELMA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for LOKELMA is 2,384 days. Of this time, 1,295 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,089 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 29 days or 98 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is denying Hassan Tahsildar's (Dr. Tahsildar's) request for a hearing and issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Dr. Tahsildar for 2 years from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Dr. Tahsildar was convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for causing the introduction or delivery for introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce. Additionally, FDA finds that the conduct underlying Dr. Tahsildar's conviction related to the regulation of drugs under the FD&C Act and that the type of conduct underlying his conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs. In determining the appropriateness and period of Dr. Tahsildar's debarment, FDA considered the relevant factors listed in the FD&C Act and concluded that a hearing is unnecessary.
This order is applicable February 8, 2023.
Any application for termination of debarment by Dr. Tahsildar under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)) (application) may be submitted as follows:
•
• If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Rachael Vieder Linowes, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4206, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-5931.
Section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act permits FDA to debar an individual if FDA finds that (1) the individual has been convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of drug products under the FD&C Act, and (2) the type of conduct underlying the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs.
On September 30, 2013, Dr. Tahsildar pled guilty to a misdemeanor for introducing, or causing the introduction of, a misbranded drug into interstate commerce, in violation of section 301(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). According to the criminal information to which Dr. Tahsildar pled guilty, between January 10, 2006, and March 12, 2009, Dr. Tahsildar “purchased and received” prescription oncology drugs from Canada. In pleading guilty, Dr. Tahsildar's admitted that his actions caused the introduction into interstate commerce of drugs that were misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) because their labeling did not bear adequate directions for use. On January 28, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered a judgment of conviction against Dr. Tahsildar for his violation of section 301(a) of the FD&C Act and sentenced him to 1 year of probation.
By letter dated July 13, 2018, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) proposed to debar Dr. Tahsildar for 3 years from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal explained that ORA based the proposed debarment on his misdemeanor conviction and concluded that a 3-year debarment is appropriate.
By letter dated September 10, 2018, Dr. Tahsildar, through counsel, requested a hearing on the proposal. Dr. Tahsildar argues that there are genuine and substantial issues of fact that support his request for a hearing. He contends that, in contrast to the findings in ORA's proposal to debar him, he did not receive notices from FDA that certain drugs being shipped from Canada to the medical practice in which he was a partner had been detained on the ground that they appeared to be unapproved drugs. He also asserts that he was never involved in the management or daily operations of the medical practice in which he was a “junior partner,” including contracting with drug suppliers or ordering drugs for use in the practice.
Under the authority delegated to her by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Chief Scientist has considered Dr. Tahsildar's request for a hearing. Hearings are granted only if there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law, on mere allegations, denials, or general descriptions of positions and contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)).
The Chief Scientist has considered Dr. Tahsildar's arguments, as well as the proposal to debar, and concludes that there is no genuine and substantial issue of fact requiring a hearing.
In response to the proposal to debar, Dr. Tahsildar does not appear to challenge that he is subject to debarment under section 306(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act. Instead, Dr. Tahsildar disputes the factual basis for ORA's findings with respect to the considerations under section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act. ORA's proposal outlined findings concerning the four factors that ORA considered in determining the appropriateness and period of debarment: (1) the nature and seriousness of the offense, (2) the nature and extent of management participation in the offense, (3) the nature and extent of voluntary steps to mitigate the impact on the public, and (4) prior convictions under the FD&C Act or other acts involving matters within FDA's jurisdiction. ORA found that the first two factors were unfavorable factors and that the latter two factors were favorable for Dr. Tahsildar. The proposal concluded that the unfavorable factors outweigh the favorable factors and that a 3-year debarment is thus appropriate.
With respect to the nature and seriousness of his offense under section 306(c)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act, ORA found in the proposal that the conduct underlying Dr. Tahsildar's misdemeanor conviction included “purchasing and receiving numerous units of unapproved oncology drugs . . . from a Canadian distributor.” ORA further found that Dr. Tahsildar “continued purchasing these drugs despite being notified by FDA on multiple occasions that foreign drug shipments destined for [his] office had been detained and appeared to be unlawfully marketed unapproved new drugs.” Relying on those factual findings, ORA determined that his conduct “created a risk of injury to consumers” and “undermined the
In support of his hearing request, Dr. Tahsildar maintains not only that he had “no intention of violating the law” but also that “he had no prior knowledge that any of the medications coming into his practice were imported from Canada.” He explains that he first learned that the practice's Texas supplier had been “shipping Canadian drugs to the practice” when two agents from FDA visited the practice and provided that information to him, at which point the practice severed its relationship with the Texas supplier and “never received medications from Canada or the Texas supplier again.” Indeed, he specifically challenges as inaccurate ORA's finding that “he continued purchasing [the] drugs despite being notified by FDA on multiple occasions that foreign drug shipments destined for [his] office had been detained and appeared to be unlawfully marketed unapproved new drugs” :
Please note that there is an inaccuracy in [ORA's proposal.] Dr. Tahsildar did not continue to purchase the Canadian drugs and was not notified by the FDA on multiple occasions that foreign drug shipments destined for his office had been detained and appeared to be unlawfully marketed unapproved new drugs. I believe [ORA is] referring to the four notices from the FDA with status dates of May 2, June 27, October 21, and November 17, 2008. All such notices were addressed to [his partner] and were not brought to Dr. Tahsildar's attention until after the two FDA agents came to the office in 2009.
He further points to the findings of the State Medical Board of Ohio in support of these assertions. As quoted by Dr. Tahsildar, the State Medical Board determined that “[r]eprints of FDA detainer notices . . . clearly show that they had been addressed to” his partner.
Insofar as Dr. Tahsildar argues that he did not intend to violate the FD&C Act, he has not raised a genuine and substantial issue of fact with respect to the nature and seriousness of his misdemeanor offense. A misdemeanor violation of the FD&C Act itself is a strict liability offense under section 303(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)(1)) and requires no showing of any criminal intent, and his mere assertion that he lacked any intent to violate the law is of no moment whatsoever. On the other hand, the Chief Scientist need not address whether Dr. Tahsildar's factual challenges to ORA's key finding that he continued to order the oncology drugs at issue after FDA provided him notice that they were unapproved and thus violated the FD&C Act raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact with respect to that finding because the Chief Scientist will assume for purposes of determining the appropriateness and period of his debarment that he received no such notice and that the medical practice discontinued ordering such drugs after he learned they were unapproved.
With respect to ORA's findings as to the nature and seriousness of his offense under section 306(c)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act, Dr. Tahsildar also challenges ORA's finding that the conduct underlying his misdemeanor offense “created a risk of injury to consumers.” Dr. Tahsildar contends that Federal prosecutors “made no allegations whatsoever that [he] engaged in any conduct that put his patients at risk” and that “the FDA agents [who visited the practice] told him that the FDA was not concerned that drugs at issue were inferior” and that the practice could continue using the drugs. This factual challenge does not raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact. Violating the FD&C Act in a manner that results in administering unapproved drugs to patients creates an inherent risk to those patients, notwithstanding any alleged statements to the contrary by FDA agents or the failure of Federal prosecutors to rely on those facts as part of the criminal prosecution.
Dr. Tahsildar next challenges ORA's findings regarding nature and extent of his management participation under section 306(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act. In its proposal, ORA stated that, as a licensed physician, Dr. Tahsildar “held a position of authority in [his] medical practice where [his] conduct served as an example for his employees.” ORA found that his conduct was more serious than if he were a mere employee and found this factor to be unfavorable for Dr. Tahsildar.
In response to these findings, Dr. Tahsildar states that “he was never involved in the management or daily operations of the practice, including contracting with medication suppliers or ordering any medications” :
When [he] was hired by [the senior partner] in 1995, he was a first-time practicing physician, coming directly out of fellowship. In 1998, Dr. Tahsildar became a junior partner of [the] practice. [The senior partner] retained a 51% ownership interest in the practice, and Dr. Tahsildar purchased a 49% ownership interest. [The senior partner] remained in control of the management and day-to-day operations of the practice, giving no control to Dr. Tahsildar. This [arrangement], however, worked well for Dr. Tahsildar because he had wanted to remain a clinician only and had been happy to leave the management and financial aspects of the practice to [the senior partner], who in turn received a three[-]percent management fee for doing so. Dr. Tahsildar received no such management fee.
Dr. Tahsildar further contends that he “did not negotiate or sign contracts on behalf of the practice (including any medication supplier contracts), nor did he sign checks on behalf of the practice, with the exception of one occasion.” He also maintains that he was never involved in ordering any drugs for the medical practice. Dr. Tahsildar argues, therefore, that the Agency should consider his management participation in the offense under section 306(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act as a favorable factor.
As a preliminary matter, the Chief Scientist notes that Dr. Tahsildar admitted during the criminal proceedings against him that he “purchased and received” the oncology drugs at issue when he pled guilty pursuant to a criminal information charging him with that conduct. His assertions to the contrary do not raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact. Nevertheless, his contentions regarding his role in the practice, though not in direct conflict with the findings in ORA's proposal, do provide additional factual context for ORA's findings and thus warrant consideration under section 306(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act. However, notwithstanding Dr. Tahsildar's claims that he did not take an active role in managing the practice, including ordering drug products, it is undisputed that Dr. Tahsildar was in a position of authority in the practice, even if he was not the managerial equal to the senior partner. By his own admission, Dr. Tahsildar was one of two partners in a medical practice, and he failed to ensure that his patients were receiving FDA-approved drugs. The Chief Scientist will nonetheless account for Dr. Tahsildar's provision of additional factual context regarding his role in the practice in assessing the consideration under section under 306(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act in determining the appropriateness and period of his debarment, as discussed below.
Considering all the applicable factors listed in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, the Chief Scientist finds that Dr. Tahsildar's misdemeanor offense and underlying conduct warrant a 2-year debarment period, as opposed to the 3-year period of debarment proposed by ORA. Although the Chief Scientist has assumed that Dr. Tahsildar had no prior
Separately, Dr. Tahsildar requests that, in lieu of debarment by FDA, he enter into a settlement agreement with FDA whereby he would voluntarily agree to the terms of the proposed debarment for the proposed period of debarment and to not provide services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. Dr. Tahsildar appears to be proposing an informal resolution of this debarment matter. However, his request is now moot given that the foregoing findings support debarment for a 2-year period.
Therefore, the Chief Scientist, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act and authority delegated to her by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, finds that Dr. Tahsildar has been convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct related to the regulation of drugs under the FD&C Act and that the type of conduct underlying the conviction undermines the regulation of drugs. FDA has considered the relevant factors listed in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act and determined that a 2-year debarment is appropriate.
As a result of the foregoing findings, Dr. Tahsildar is debarred for 2 years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective February 8, 2023, (see 21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(iii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd))). Any person with an approved or pending drug application who knowingly uses the services of Dr. Tahsildar, in any capacity during his debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Dr. Tahsildar, during his period of debarment, provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application, he will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Dr. Tahsildar during his period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 10, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
Recipients funded under RWHAP Parts A, B, C, and D are required to report financial data to HRSA at the beginning (Allocations Report) and at the end (Expenditures Report) of their grant budget period. The A&E Reports request information recipients already collect, including the use of RWHAP grant funds for core medical and support services; and on various program components, such as administration, planning and evaluation, and clinical quality management (CQM). RWHAP Parts A and B recipients funded under the
The reports are similar in content; however, in the first report, recipients document the allocation of their RWHAP or EHE grant award at the beginning of their grant budget period. In the second report, recipients document actual expenditures of their RWHAP or EHE grant award (including any carryover dollars) at the end of their grant budget period.
HRSA proposes the following updates to the RWHAP Allocations Reports.
• Revising row and column headers and other language for clarity and alignment with RWHAP requirements;
• Combining the columns for RWHAP Part A Formula and Supplemental Allocation amounts and updating the title;
• Moving the RWHAP Part A Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI) Award Amount row after the RWHAP Part A Supplemental Award Amount row;
• Changing the calculation for Service Allocation Subtotal percent in the Total RWHAP Part A Allocation Amounts column;
• Blacking out the percent columns for the RWHAP Part A Formula and Supplemental Allocation Amounts, RWHAP Part A MAI Allocation Amounts, and selected cells in the Total RWHAP Part A Allocation Amounts column; and
• Adding the Legislative Requirements Checklist.
• Revising row and column headers and other language for clarity and alignment with RWHAP requirements;
• Adding the following rows to Table 1: 4c. Part B HIV Care Consortia Planning & Evaluation/Emerging Communities (EC) HIV Care Consortia Planning & Evaluation and 4d. Part B HIV Care Consortia CQM/EC HIV Care Consortia CQM except for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) Earmark + ADAP Supplemental Award cells;
• Removing row 11. Total Part B X07 Allocations;
• Allowing users to enter data in Table 2 for 1d. Health Insurance Premium & Cost Sharing and 1e. Home and Community-based Health Services;
• Blacking out selected cells in the following rows, columns, or tables:
• Updating calculations and language in the Legislative Requirements Checklist; and
• Removing the following services under the Legislative Requirements Checklist's Core Medical Services:
• There are no proposed changes to the RWHAP Part C Allocations Report.
• There are no proposed changes to the RWHAP Part D Allocations Report.
• There are no proposed changes to the HRSA EHE Allocations Reports. A 60-day notice published in the
HRSA specifically requests comments on (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
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Addiction Risks and Mechanisms Study Section, February 23, 2023, 9:00 a.m. to February 24, 2023, 7:30 p.m., Darcy Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, DC 20005 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the name of the hotel from Darcy Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, DC 20005 to the Hotel George, 15 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20001. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of Partnership and Engagement (OPE).
Notice of new taskings for the Faith Based Security Advisory Council (FBSAC).
On January 24, 2023, the Secretary of DHS, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, tasked the Faith-Based Security Advisory Council (FBSAC) to form three subcommittees further outlined below. This notice is not a solicitation for membership.
Sameer Hossain, Designated Federal Officer, Faith-Based Security Advisory Council, Office of Partnership and Engagement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security at
The FBSAC provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, and actionable advice to the Secretary through the Assistant Secretary for OPE, who serves as the DHS Faith-Based Organizations Security Coordinator on security and preparedness matters related to places of worship, faith communities, and faith-based organizations. The FBSAC serves strictly as an advisory body with the purpose of providing advice upon the request of the Secretary.
The three subcommittees are as follows:
A subcommittee to provide recommendations on how the Department can more efficiently and effectively share information to enhance the security and preparedness of places of worship, faith communities, and faith-based organizations.
A subcommittee to provide recommendation on how the Department can most effectively and appropriately share resources that meet the needs of diverse faith-based organizations and communities, including remedying challenges to applying for DHS grants.
A subcommittee to provide recommendations on how the Department can build trust and resilience with faith community stakeholders.
The Department must prioritize timely two-way sharing of threat and security-related information with faith-based organizations in order protect faith-based organizations and all members of the public.
This subcommittee is tasked to provide recommendations:
1. Regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department's information sharing and how the Department can enhance the security and preparedness of places of worship, faith communities, and faith-based organizations.
2. For new information-sharing mechanisms, whether via existing information-sharing platforms or networks, or by creating a new process that will effectively communicate threat information and other relevant federal resources to faith communities of diverse backgrounds.
Following the hostage situation at the Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, Secretary Mayorkas called for an increase in funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP). This program provides essential resources to help protect nonprofit organizations at risk of terrorist attacks.
In Fiscal Year 2022, Congress provided $250 million for the NSGP, an increase of $70 million from the prior year. For Fiscal Year 2023, Congress increased the NSGP funding to $305 million, a 22% increase on Fiscal Year 2022. These increases allowed more nonprofit organizations across the nation to make physical security enhancements to help protect against attacks. These increases also enable DHS to expand participation in this critical program and increase our support to historically marginalized communities and Historically Black Colleges and Universities in an effort to build capacity and address an evolving threat environment. One of the Secretary's priorities is to ensure equity in all DHS grant awards.
This FBSAC subcommittee is tasked to provide recommendations on:
1. How the Department can most effectively and appropriately address challenges to applying for DHS grants for which faith-based organizations are eligible, as well as how best these grants can meet the needs of faith-based organizations.
2. How the Department's existing resources can better meet the needs of diverse faith-based organizations and communities, in addition to providing grants.
3. The development and implementation of specific best practices to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of targeted violence or terrorism, major disasters, cyberattacks, or other threats or emergencies while preserving individual privacy and civil rights and civil liberties.
DHS is defined by its partnerships—not only with law enforcement, emergency responders, and our international partners, but also with the diverse communities we serve. To protect the homeland, we must have strong relationships with these communities and work in partnership to build strong, resilient communities.
This subcommittee is tasked to provide recommendations on:
1. How the Department can build trust with faith community stakeholders to better understand their concerns, including real or perceived threats from violent actors or groups.
2. How the Department can empower local leaders to mobilize resources to mitigate and respond to threats.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, 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. To receive consideration of your comments, the comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and must be submitted through one of two methods, specified below.
1.
2.
Sylvia Whitlock, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4580, (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech and communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Tenant data is collected to understand demographic, family profile, income, and housing information for participants in the Public Housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 8 Project Based Certificate, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, and MTW Demonstration programs. This data also allows HUD to monitor the performance of programs and the performance of public housing agencies that administer the programs.
HUD is proposing several changes to the HUD-50058 Family Report. HUD is also proposing necessary corresponding changes to the HUD-50058 MTW and HUD-50058 MTW Expansion Reports for consistency, along with a few minor revisions. This data will be used to understand demographic, family profile, income, and housing information. There are several data elements that have been changed, removed, or added from their original content in recognition of rulemakings, policy changes, and current equity principles. HUD is also removing the Welfare to Work program references throughout the form since the program no longer exists. HUD does not expect the changes being proposed to impact the burden on respondents. HUD welcomes comments on the proposed changes or additional changes that should be considered when renewing this information collection, especially relevant to burden reduction. One significant change is that HUD will be moving many of the codes from the form itself and placing them in the instruction booklet to ease the use of the form and allow for non-significant future updates.
HUD proposes to update the program types and add the unit real estate ID number to this section.
HUD proposes to update the codes for special programs and type of actions. For the type of action codes, HUD is proposing to remove the “Historical Adjustment” code, and add codes for PBV Transfer to Tenant-Based Voucher and two action types that will allow PHAs to record changes when the family will not receive an interim income reexamination due to Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016, Public Law 114-201, (HOTMA) rulemaking—Household Composition Change Only; and Other Change, Non-Income Threshold. In addition, HUD plans to change the FSS participation question to a Supportive Service program participation question to align with the changes in Section 17. HUD is also proposing to add questions to list the primary reason for a family's end of participation, similar to the current HUD-50058 MTW Expansion, but add additional Tenant Initiated code and Nonpayment of Rent as a code. Lastly, HUD plans to add a question on reasons for a family's interim reexamination (already on the HUD-50058 MTW Expansion); the type of HCV voucher issued, if applicable; and a date a participant vacated an HCV unit, if applicable. HUD requests comments on whether the codes proposed and currently used in these sections represent the best code options for PHAs when completing the Form 50058 and whether new or changes to existing codes should be considered.
HUD is considering changing the Alien Registration number to provide alternatively for a USCIS Number or USCIS case number field. HUD requests comments on whether such a change would be appropriate for collecting similar information. In addition, HUD is considering updating the field for Sex to Gender and allow for inclusion of X-Non-Binary/Transgender, NR-No Response/Prefer not to answer, and the option to pick more than one response. HUD recognizes that some PHAs have policies that use this field response to determine bedroom sizes and other PHAs have State requirements to allow other such gender desingations. Therefore, HUD requests specific comment on what barriers PHAs might face if HUD makes these changes and what guidance would be helpful for PHAs if HUD does implement this change.
HUD is also considering, in response to Executive Order 14075,
Lastly, HUD is proposing to change the Race question to include a new code “Other” and considering adding to the Disability question a new code “No Response.”
HUD proposes to include new lines to include a date when the family was selected from the waiting list; if the family was formerly homeless; if the family transitioned out of an institutional setting; and whether there was a special non-waiting list admission.
HUD proposes to add an urbanization code to accommodate Puerto Rican addresses; provide for the type of accessible unit identified by the PHA; and include whether the last inspection passed by the unit was an alternative inspection.
HUD proposes to update this section to delineate actual income from imputed income for each family member consistent with HUD's HOTMA rulemaking. HUD will also amend the formula associate with the asset to reflect the HOTMA changes.
HUD proposes to revise this section heading to “Deductions and Allowances.” HUD would also include a new question for families to indicate if a family is eligible for a medical hardship expense, childcare hardship expense or both, consistent with HUD's HOTMA rulemaking. In addition, HUD would add questions required to be supplied by the PHA to help determine if a family is subject to HOTMA's public housing over-income rule: what the applicable over-income limit for families of the application's size is; if the family is over-income; and the date the over-income family began the 24 consecutive month grace period.
HUD proposes to revise Section 10 heading to remove “and Turnkey III.” HUD also proposes to remove the income-based ceiling rent question and replace the “income-based ceiling rent” reference with “flat rent.”
HUD proposes to revise Section 11 heading to remove reference to “Certificates” and add a question to include the HAP Contract ID Number, as assigned by the PBV HAP Contract Collection module in the Housing Information Portal (HIP).
HUD proposes to remove the question about if the family qualifies as “Hard to House.” HUD also proposes to add items requesting information on whether the family received mobility-related services; if a security deposit was paid by the PHA on behalf of the family; and if the family received a higher payment standard as reasonable accommodation. In addition, HUD proposes to add from the HUD-50058 MTW Expansion the questions about additional Payments, not HAP Payments, for tenant-based voucher family and financial incentives for property owners.
HUD proposes to revise Section 17 heading to read “Supportive Services Programs.” The section removes the Welfare to Work voucher questions, but provides information on effective date, employment, and services for other supportive services programs, such as ROSS and Jobs Plus. There are also minor amendments to list of benefits a participating family receives, and the services needed by/provided to participating families. HUD also plans to remove the questions about who provides the services. HUD proposes to remove the question about whether the family received a selection preference because of a FSS related service program, given such preference is listed elsewhere in the form. HUD also proposes to add options to the question of why a participant exited the FSS program, to conform with the FSS Final Rule.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of Administration, HUD.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, gives notice of a proposed revision of an existing Privacy Act system of records. The system of records is being updated in support of a follow-up information collection with the participants of the Homeless Families Impact Study (now called the Family Options Study). The overall goal of the Family Options Study is to determine which housing and service intervention works best to promote housing stability, family preservation, and family well-being, and self-sufficiency for homeless families with children. The new information collected will be added to the existing Homeless Families Impact Study Data Files. The Department proposes to expand the data collected under the previous study to capture additional data to determine the effects that housing and service interventions has had on the young children who are part of the sample. Refer to the “Categories of Records” section to identify new record types. Additionally, this Notice updates the routine uses of the data collected. This notice supersedes the previously published notice (February 26, 2014).
Comments will be accepted on or before March 10, 2023. This proposed action will be effective immediately upon publication. Routine uses will become effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number by one of these methods:
LaDonne White; 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number 202-708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
HUD launched the Family Options Study in 2008 with the intent of generating evidence about the relative effectiveness of various housing and services interventions designed to address family homelessness. HUD awarded the contract for the Family Options Study to Abt Associates and their partner, Vanderbilt University, who have conducted prior phases of the study and will conduct this next phase of the evaluation. Specific changes to the SORN include:
Changes to categories of records in the system and sources categories. The upcoming follow-up information collection with the participants of the Family Options Study will include additional categories of records which will be stored as part of the Homeless Families Impact Study Data Files.
Updated routine uses. The routine uses have been updated to remove those which are no longer relevant to this data collection (including the Congressional Inquiries Routine Use, the Department of Justice for Litigation Disclosure Routine Use, the Court or Law Enforcement Proceeding Routine Use, and the Law Enforcement Investigation Routine Use) and to add a new Research and Statistical Analysis Disclosure Routine Use.
Updated the System Location to reflect current addresses of contractors. The contractor has moved offices since the publication of the original SORN in 2014, and thus the System Location has been updated to reflect the current address.
Updated the Purpose to reflect the additional phase of the study. The original SORN was published in 2014 and did not forecast this new followup information collection, thus the SORN is being revised to refer to this additional phase of the study.
Updated record retention and disposal and safeguards sections to reflect current retention requirements and current safeguard procedures. This section has been updated to reflect current record retention requirements and current safeguard procedures.
Homeless Families Impact Study Data Files HUD/PD&R/04
Unclassified.
Homeless Families Impact Study Data Files are maintained by Abt Associates which has principal offices at the following locations: Abt Associates Inc., 10 Fawcett Street Suite 5, Cambridge, MA; Abt Associates Inc., 6130 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. The Abt Associates system is hosted inside Amazon Web Services US East Cloud Region.
Carol Star, Director, Division of Program Evaluation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 8120, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Phone: (202) 402-6139.
Sections 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-609) (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1; 1701z-2(d) and (g)).
The purpose of the Homeless Families Impact Study Data Files will be to store the information that is needed to measure the long-term outcomes of the Family Options Study. The information to be maintained in this records system is necessary to identify and track the participating families over the course of the study and determine the effectiveness of the interventions. The data in this system will be analyzed using statistical methods and any results shared with the public or published in anyway will be reported only in the aggregate. Resulting reports will not disclose or identify any individuals or sensitive personal information.
Families enrolled in Family Options Study and children in these families who have aged into adulthood and enrolled in the study.
The data sets will contain the following categories of records.
Families enrolled in the Family Options Study, HUD's PIH Inventory Management System/PIH Information Center (IMS/PIC), National Director of New Hires (NDNH), National Student Clearinghouse, Research Data Assistance Center, National Center for Health Statistics, National Change of Address (NCOA), and Accurint.
(1) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or their parties, and entities and their agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement for the purposes of statistical analysis and
(2) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement with HUD, or its contractor Abt Associates, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to a system of records. Disclosure requirements are limited to only those data elements considered relevant to accomplishing an agency function.
(3) (a) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) HUD suspects or has confirmed there has breached the system of records; (2) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HUD (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 with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(4) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HUD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to 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.
(5) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or employees or contractors, and other entities and their agents for the conduct of HUD-approved ancillary studies relevant to the Family Options Study. Records under this routine use may not be used in whole or in part to make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. Research reports resulting from any such ancillary studies would be required to report all results in the aggregate and to ensure that no individual was identifiable.
Electronic and paper.
User records are retrieved internally by a Name, Social Security Number, Date of Birth and unique study ID.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to their records in this system of records may submit a request in writing to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Attn: FOIA Program Office, 451 7th Street SW, Suite 10139, Washington, DC 20410-0001 or by emailing
1. Full name.
2. Signature.
3. The reason why the individual believes this system contains information about him/her.
4. The address to which the information should be sent.
The HUD rule for accessing, contesting, and appealing agency determinations by the individual concerned are published in 24 CFR part 16 or may be obtained from the system manager.
Any person wanting to know whether this system of records contains information about him or her should contact the System Manager. Such person should provide his or her full name, position title and office location at the time the accommodation was requested, and a mailing address to which a response is to be sent.
None.
This is a revision to the previously published notice published in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are preparing an environmental assessment for a
Brian Glaspell, Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska, Alaska Regional Office, by email at
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA 42 U.S.C. 4321
The applicant has identified the following initial items for transport over the ROW during the term of the desired ROW permit, including but not limited to the following:
• Permanent school modules for Kaktovik and other building modules;
• Bi-directional movement of community vehicles;
• Diesel fuel, using double-walled fuel tanks, for the community powerplant; and
• Other consumables, as identified by the community.
The number of round trips would vary year to year, depending on community needs. All products would be transported across the proposed winter overland trail on Rolligon vehicles, which exert low ground pressure. For detailed information regarding KIC's application, please go to
The purpose of the proposed action is to assure adequate and feasible access (to the extent it does not already exist) for economic and other purposes to KIC's inholdings within the Refuge while protecting the natural and other values of the Refuge. The need for the proposed action is established by KIC's application for an ROW pursuant to title XI, section 1110(b) of ANICLA and the Department's implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 36.
Based on the proposed route and methods identified by KIC in their ROW application (
• Polar bears and their critical habitat;
• Cultural and paleontological resources;
• Tundra, soils, permafrost, stream banks, and coastal banks;
• Proposed wilderness and wilderness character;
• Central Arctic and Porcupine caribou herds;
• Water;
• Public safety;
• Viewshed;
• Soundscape;
• Shorebirds and other avian species;
• The Hula Hula River (proposed by the Service as a wild and scenic river under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act (Pub. L. 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271
• Other marine mammal species in the vicinity of the project area;
• Other threatened and endangered species;
• Socioeconomics of the Kaktovik community; and
• Subsistence uses.
The Service received the complete application from KIC on December 21, 2021. Although departmental regulations in 43 CFR part 36 state that an EA or a draft environmental impact statement shall be completed within 9 months after the application filing date, those regulations allow for a longer time period if the lead agency determines, for good cause, that the 9-month period is insufficient. Due to the complexity of the project, the Service needs to extend the completion date for the EA. The Service will complete the draft EA by September 2023. Upon completion, the Service will make the draft EA available on the Refuge's website (
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Amended and Restated Tribal-State Compact for Regulation of Class III Gaming between the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the State of Oregon (Compact) governing class III gaming for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (Tribe) in the State of Oregon (State).
The Amendments take effect on February 8, 2023.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Walsh Gallery at Seton Hall University (Walsh Gallery) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from unknown sites in the Mid-Atlantic United States.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after March 10, 2023.
Laura Hapke, Collections Manager, Walsh Gallery, University Libraries, Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ 07079, telephone (973) 275-2165, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Walsh Gallery. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Walsh Gallery.
Human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from unknown sites in the Mid-Atlantic United States. In all cases, no known individuals were identified and no associated funerary objects are present.
FIM013—Possibly in 1962, the human remains of one individual were excavated by Lewis Haggerty from a location in New York he identified as the “Van Sickle site.” Based on Haggarty's records, this site may have been in Orange County, NY. The age of the human remains is unknown. Haggarty's collection, including these human remains, was donated to the Seton Hall University Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology in 1981. In 2001, the museum closed following director Herbert Kraft's death, and in 2015, its collections were transferred to the Walsh Gallery.
FIM172—At an unknown date, the human remains of one individual were removed from an unknown location. These remains came into the collection of the Seton Hall University Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology through Professor of Anthropology Herbert Kraft. As Kraft's work focused on the Lenape Indians, these human remains are likely affiliated with the Lenape. In 2001, the museum closed following director Herbert Kraft's death, and in 2015, its collections were transferred to the Walsh Gallery.
FIM606—At an unknown date, the human remains of one individual were removed from an unknown location. These human remains came into the collection of the Seton Hall University Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology through Professor of Anthropology Herbert Kraft. As Kraft's work focused on the Lenape Indians, these human remains are likely affiliated with the Lenape. In 2001, the museum closed following director Herbert Kraft's death, and in 2015, its collections were transferred to the Walsh Gallery.
FIM607—At an unknown date, the human remains of one individual were removed from an unknown site in New Jersey. In 1962, David Werner and Lyman Vandermark donated these human remains to the Seton Hall Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology. The age of these human remains is unknown. The Seton Hall University Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology closed in 2001, and in 2015, its collections were transferred to the Walsh Gallery.
FIM0608—At an unknown date, the human remains of one individual were removed from an unknown location. These human remains came into the collection of the Seton Hall University Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology through Professor of Anthropology Herbert Kraft. As Kraft's work focused on the Lenape Indians, these human remains are likely affiliated with the Lenape. In 2001, the museum closed following director Herbert Kraft's death, and in 2015, its collections were transferred to the Walsh Gallery.
FIM0609—At an unknown date, the human remains of one individual were removed from an unknown location. These human remains came into the collection of the Seton Hall University Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology through Professor of Anthropology Herbert Kraft. As Kraft's work focused on the Lenape Indians, these human remains are likely affiliated with the Lenape. In 2001, the museum closed following director Herbert Kraft's death, and in 2015, its collections were transferred to the Walsh Gallery.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: historical and geographical (based on institutional knowledge about the Walsh Gallery's archeological collection).
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Walsh Gallery has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 10, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Walsh Gallery must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Walsh Gallery is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology at the address in this notice by March 10, 2023.
Emily McDowell, Office of State Archaeology, 215 West Lane Street, Raleigh, NC 27616, telephone (919) 715-5599, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Hanging Dog Site (31CY12) located in Clay County, NC.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Hanging Dog site (31CY12) in Clay County, NC. During investigations for the Clay County Industrial Park Project, the Tennessee Valley Authority discovered the remains of two individuals in situ. The remains of one of the individuals were left in place and the remains of the other individual were excavated and removed. No chain of custody or intake transfer are included in the paperwork and the date of intake and circumstances surrounding the individual's arrival at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology are unknown. The fragmentary human remains belong to a sub-adult individual perhaps a child less than five years of age. No known individual was identified. The one associated funerary object is one lot of glass and copper beads and fibers.
The Hanging Dog site consists of a Qualla-phase historic tanning shed and an early Cherokee farmstead with burials. Fibers extracted from the burial and analyzed in 2001 provide a historic 17th century time frame. Burial style, site time frame, abundant grave goods, and fiber analysis all suggest the burial is a historic Cherokee child who was an important member of his or her group.
Officials of the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Emily McDowell, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, 215 West Lane Street, Raleigh, NC 27616, telephone (919) 715-5599, email
The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology is responsible for notifying The Tribes and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology at the address in this notice by March 10, 2023.
Emily McDowell, Office of State Archaeology, 215 West Lane Street, Raleigh, NC 27616, telephone (919) 715-5599, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Peachtree Mound and Village Site (31CE1 and 31CE6) located in Cherokee County, NC.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
At an unknown time, believed to be 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Peachtree Mound and Village site (31CE1 and 31CE6) in Cherokee County, NC, by a former North Carolina Office of State Archaeology staff member during a visit to the site to investigate extensive damage done to the mound and village by pot hunters. This site had been monitored over several years by previous staff at the Office of State Archaeology. Although the only report on file for these visits, from 1982, does not specify whether human remains were recovered, the Office of State Archaeology reasonably believes that these human remains were removed during that visit. The remains were collected from the surface of the site and presumably belong to an adult. No known individuals were identified. The 284 associated funerary objects are 225 pottery sherds, 35 animal bone fragments, 15 shell fragments, seven rocks, one daub, and one flake.
Described as a “platform mound,” this site has been excavated since the 1870s. The mound is believed to be a ceremonial structure. Writing in 1941, Setzler and Jennings identified Peachtree Mound and Village as a Woodland-to-Mississippian period site with a historic occupation, and noted that, characteristically, it was similar to the Cherokee village known as Guasili described by De Soto in 1540. Setzler and Jennings also observed that the site's “spatial centrality, combined with its topographic isolation deep in the mountains, makes it highly improbable that it was alternately occupied by Cherokee and other Indian groups.” Additionally, several of the pottery sherds have been identified as Qualla, a phase specifically associated with Cherokee occupation.
Officials of the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 284 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to “The Tribes”).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Emily McDowell, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, 215 West Lane Street, Raleigh, NC 27616, telephone (919) 715-5599, email
The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology is responsible for notifying The Tribes and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Navajo County, AZ.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after March 10, 2023.
Michael Christiano, Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College, 30 W Dale Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, telephone (719) 477-4311, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from “Four-Mile” in Navajo County, AZ. On December 17, 2019, cremated remains were found at the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center during a collections inventory. At the time, the museum could not determine whether the cremated remains were human or faunal. On March 16, 2022, the remains were identified as human cremations of one adult and one juvenile. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one cremation urn and one lot of mixed materials.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological and geographical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Santo Domingo Pueblo; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after March 10, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 10, 2023.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by either of the following methods listed below:
• Electronically go to
• Email
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Nicole Mason by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under the PRA. We may not conduct, or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
BSEE proposes to renew this information collection, without change, in order to extend the expiration date for the collection (currently April 30, 2023) while we continue to finalize our rulemaking under RIN 1082-AA02, Risk Management, Financial Assurance and Loss Prevention—Decommissioning Activities and Obligations. On October 16, 2020, we published the proposed rule (85 FR 65904) to revise the regulations related to decommissioning responsibilities of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and grant holders to ensure compliance with lease, grant, and regulatory obligations. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on December 13, 2020.
The final rule will require all recipients of a predecessor decommissioning order to submit a work plan and schedule as directed under §§ 250.1704(b) and 250.1708(a). BSEE considers this necessary to protect the public from incurring future decommissioning costs and to prevent safety and environmental risks posed by delayed performance of decommissioning. Within 150 days of receiving an order to perform decommissioning under § 250.1708, the recipient(s) will be required to submit a work plan and projected decommissioning schedule that addresses all wells, platforms and other facilities, pipelines, and site clearance. This requirement will add an estimated 4,320 annual burden hours to the existing collection. We anticipate publication of the final rule under RIN 1082-AA02 in 2023.
• To determine the necessity for allowing a well to be temporarily abandoned, the lessee/operator must demonstrate that there is a reason for not permanently plugging the well, and the temporary abandonment will not interfere with fishing, navigation, or other uses of the OCS. We use the information and documentation to verify that the lessee/operator is diligently pursuing the final disposition of the well and has performed the temporary plugging of the wellbore.
• To ensure the information submitted in initial decommissioning plans in the Alaska and Pacific OCS Regions will permit BSEE to become involved on the ground floor planning of platform removals anticipated to occur in these OCS regions.
• To ensure that all objects (wellheads, platforms, etc.) installed on the OCS are properly removed using procedures that will protect marine life and the environment during removal operations, and the site cleared so as not to conflict with or harm other uses of the OCS in coordination with other Federal, State, and local government agencies.
• To ensure that information regarding decommissioning a pipeline in place will not constitute a hazard to navigation and commercial fishing operations, unduly interfere with other uses of the OCS, such as sand resource areas for coastal restoration projects, or have adverse environmental effects.
• To verify that decommissioning activities comply with approved applications and procedures and are satisfactorily completed.
• To evaluate and approve the adequacy of the equipment, materials, and/or procedures that the lessee or operator plans to use during well modifications and changes in equipment, etc.
• To help BSEE better estimate future decommissioning costs for OCS leases, rights-of-way, and rights of use and easements. BSEE's future decommissioning cost estimates may then be used by BOEM to set necessary financial assurance levels to minimize or eliminate the possibility that the government will incur abandonment liability. The information will assist BSEE and BOEM in meeting their stewardship responsibilities and in their roles as regulators.
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
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
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) 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 Club-Conex LLC on February 2, 2023. 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 certain universal golf club head connection adaptors, certain components thereof, and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondents: Top Golf Equipment Co. Limited d/b/a All-Fit Golf of China; Volf Sports Co. LTD of China; and WoFu (Shenzhen) Sports Goods Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' 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. 3667 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 11) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), granting in part Google's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add to the investigation claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,024,311 (“the '311 patent”), claims 4, 9, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,812,128 (“the '128 patent”), and claims 10, 12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,050,615 (“the '615 patent”).
Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on September 15, 2022, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Google LLC of Mountain View, California. 87 FR 56701 (Sept. 15, 2022). The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio players and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of the '311, '128, and '615 patents and U.S. Patent No. 9,632,748.
On December 15, 2022, Google file a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to allege infringement of additional patent claims. In particular, Google sought to add to the investigation claim 19 of the '311 patent, claims 4, 9, and 14 of the '128 patent, and claims 10, 12, 18, and 20 of the '615 patent.
On January 4, 2023, the ALJ issued Order No. 11, which includes the subject ID and which granted the motion in part. The ID granted Google's motion with respect to claim 19 of the '311 patent, claims 4, 9, and 14 of the '128 patent, and claims 10, 12, and 18 of the '615 patent. In a portion of Order No. 11 that does not include the ID, the ALJ denied Google's motion as to claim 20 of the '615 patent. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The complaint and notice of investigation are hereby amended to add the following claims to the investigation: claim 19 of the '311 patent, claims 4, 9, and 14 of the '128 patent, and claims 10, 12, and 18 of the '615 patent.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on February 3, 2023.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 47) of the presiding Chief Administrative Law Judge (“Chief ALJ”) terminating the above-captioned investigation as to respondents Yunda H&H Tech (Tianjin) Co., LTD. of Tianjinshi, China; Tianjin Tianchuang Best Pure Environmental Science And Technology Co. Ltd. of Tianjin, China; Top Pure (Usa) Inc. of Pico Rivera, California; and W&L Trading LLC of Frisco, Texas (collectively, “Third Settling Respondents”) based on settlement. The Commission has also determined to request written submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons, under the schedule set forth below, on remedy, the public interest, and bonding concerning the defaulting respondents.
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On January 21, 2022, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on a complaint filed by LG
On April 12, 2022, the Commission terminated the investigation as to JJ Imports based on the entry of a consent order.
On September 16, 2022, the Commission partially terminated the investigation as to the '972 patent in its entirety.
On December 22, 2022, Complainants and the Third Settling Respondents (collectively, “the Moving Parties”) filed an unopposed corrected joint motion to partially terminate the investigation as to the Third Settling Respondents. On December 23, 2022, OUII filed a response in support of the motion. No other response was received.
On January 4, 2023, the Chief ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 47) granting the joint motion and staying the procedural schedule as to the Third Settling Respondents. The ID finds that the joint motion complies with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b).
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
Furthermore, on January 11, 2023, Complainants filed a Declaration under Commission Rule 210.16 (19 CFR 210.16) requesting the immediate entry of a limited exclusion order against the defaulting respondents and cease and desist orders against the defaulting respondents except Jiangsu. Complainants also indicated, pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16(c)(2), that they are not seeking a general exclusion order. No response to Complainants' Declaration was received.
Commission Rule 210.16(c)(1) provides that “[a]fter a respondent has been found in default by the Commission, the complainant may file with the Commission a declaration that it is seeking immediate entry of relief against the respondent in default” and “[t]he facts alleged in the complaint will be presumed to be true with respect to the defaulting respondent.”
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to request written
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination.
Written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on February 13, 2023. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on February 20, 2023. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1290”) 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 by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The Commission's vote for these determinations took place on February 2, 2023.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to Commission Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission orders that the complainant(s) complete service for any party/parties without a method of electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
By order of the Commission.
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed 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. The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is soliciting comments on the proposed extension of the information collection requests (ICRs) contained in the documents described below. A copy of the ICRs may be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the
James Butikofer, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210, or
This notice requests public comment on the Department's request for extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of ICRs contained in the rules and prohibited transaction exemptions described below. The Department is not proposing any changes to the existing ICRs at this time. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. A summary of the ICRs and the burden estimates follows:
The information will be used by plan participants and beneficiaries wishing to obtain plan loans. It also will be used by plan administrators in administering their plans' loan program. The Department also will use the information in any enforcement proceedings regarding plan loans. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0076. The current approval is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2023.
The Department has included in the class exemption a recordkeeping provision, whereby plans are required to maintain the records, information, and data which relate to plan investments in customer notes that is otherwise required to be maintained. The class exemption requires that those records be made available to certain persons on request. Without this recordkeeping requirement, the Department would be unable to effectively enforce the terms of the exemption and ensure user compliance. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0094. The current approval is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2023.
The Department's regulations contain information collections that constitute mandatory third-party disclosure requirements applicable to the majority of ERISA-covered pension and welfare benefit plans. The Department has determined that these information collections are necessary in order to ensure the participants and beneficiaries in employee benefit plans covered under ERISA receive adequate information about the benefits due to them and their rights under the plans. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0039. The current
The final rule, 29 CFR 2550.404a-5(c), requires three sub-categories of Plan-related information to be provided to participants and beneficiaries. The first sub-category is General Plan Information, which includes how participants may give investment instructions or exercise proxy voting or tendering rights, restrictions on transferring account assets among investment alternatives, and identification of the plan's designated investment alternatives and designated investment managers (29 CFR 2550.404a-5(c)(1)). The second sub-category of Plan-related information is Administrative Expense Information, which refers to explanations of any fees and expenses for general plan administrative services (
The rule also requires plan administrators to disclose three sub-categories of investment-related information to participants and beneficiaries on or before their date of eligibility, which relates to the plans designated investment alternatives. The first sub-category of information is information required to be provided automatically. (29 CFR 2550.404a-5(d)(1)). For each designated investment alternative, the plan must disclose specified identifying information, past performance data, comparable benchmark returns, fee and expense information, and an internet website address that is sufficiently specific to lead participants and beneficiaries to specified supplemental information for each investment alternative. The latest information available to the plan must be furnished annually. Material changes to this information must be disclosed at least 30 days but no more than 90 days before the effective date of the change except for unforeseen events or circumstances beyond the plan administrator's control. Investment-related information must be furnished in a chart or similar format designed to help participants compare the plan's investment alternatives across each category of information. (29 CFR 2550.404a-5(d)(2)). To facilitate compliance, the rule includes a model chart that may be used by plan fiduciaries to satisfy this requirement. The second sub-category of investment-related information is Post-Investment Information. Following a participant's investment in an alternative, the plan administrator must provide any materials it receives regarding voting, tender or similar rights in the alternative (“pass-through materials”) to the extent such rights are passed through to the participant or beneficiary. (29 CFR 2550.404a-5(d)(3)). The third sub-category of investment-related information is Information to be provided upon Request (29 CFR 2550.404a-5(d)(4)). Participants may request the plan to provide prospectuses, financial reports, as well as statements of valuation and a list of assets held by an investment alternative.
The information collection describes the timeframes and acceptable format for providing the disclosures. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0090. The current approval is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2023.
The information collection contains a third-party disclosure. The consent serves to demonstrate to the plan administrator that an individual has the ability to access information in the electronic form that will be used for disclosure purposes. Such confirmation will ensure the compatibility of the hardware and software between the individual and the plan, and will also serve to demonstrate that the administrator has taken appropriate and necessary measures reasonably calculated to ensure that the system for furnishing documents results in actual receipt, as required under ERISA. Lastly, where applicable, the consent provides a means for the individual to provide the plan with the correct email address to facilitate the efficiencies that may arise from the use of electronic technologies where appropriate.
Retirement plan administrators may satisfy their obligation to furnish ERISA-required disclosures by making the information accessible online and
Section 40211(b)(2)(A) of MAP-21 amended ERISA section 101(f)(2) by adding a new subparagraph (D), which requires single-employer defined benefit plan administrators to disclose additional information in the annual funding notice for a plan year beginning after December 31, 2011, regarding the effect of the MAP-21 segment rate stabilization rules on plan liabilities and the plan sponsor's minimum required contributions to the plan. Section 40211(b)(2)(B) of MAP-21 directed the Department to modify the model annual funding notice required under section 501(c) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), to prominently include the supplemental information required under ERISA section 101(f)(2)(D). The Department issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2013-01 to address issues related to the disclosures required by section 101(f)(2)(D) and to provide a model segment rate stabilization supplement for the annual funding notices of single-employer plans. The Department subsequently issued FAB 2015-01 to address changes made to the segment stabilization rules and the supplement required by section 101(f)(2)(D) by the Highway and Transportation and Funding Act of 2014. The segment rate stabilization rules and section 101(f)(2)(D) of ERISA were further modified by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act extending the requirement to furnish the segment rate stabilization requirement-through the 2034
The Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act, Public Law 113-97 (2014) added a new subparagraph (E) to section 101(f)(2) of ERISA which required CSEC plans to include additional information in their annual funding notices. The Department reserved section 2520.101-5(m) of the final regulation for CSEC plans.
The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA), Public Law 113-235 (2014), added new disclosure requirements to section 101(f)(2)(B) of ERISA relating to the new multiemployer funding classification of “critical and declining status.” A plan is in critical and declining status if it is in critical status and is projected to become insolvent with 15 years (or within 20 years if a special rule applies). MPRA requires the annual funding notice of critical and declining status plans to include the projected date of insolvency; a clear statement that such insolvency may result in benefit reductions; and a statement describing whether the plan sponsor has taken legally permitted actions to prevent insolvency. These requirements were added to the final regulation and the multiemployer plan model notice to reflect the MPRA amendments to ERISA section 101(f) and are included in the hour burden to complete that notice.
MPRA requires the annual funding notice of critical and declining status plans to include the projected date of insolvency; a clear statement that such insolvency may result in benefit reductions; and a statement describing whether the plan sponsor has taken legally permitted actions to prevent insolvency. These requirements were added to the final regulation and the multiemployer plan model notice to reflect the MPRA amendments to ERISA section 101(f).
On February 2, 2015, the Department published final rules implementing ERISA section 101(f). As required by statute, the final rule requires the plan administrator of a defined benefit pension plan that is subject to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's Insurance Program to furnish a funding notice annually to participants, beneficiaries, labor organizations representing such participants or beneficiaries, employers obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Large plans must furnish the notice by the 120th day following the end of the plan year to which the notice relates. A small plan may furnish a funding notice on or before the due date, with extensions, of the plan's Form 5500 Annual Return/Report filed with the Department.
The final rule provides guidance and model annual funding notices. Administrators of single and multiemployer defined benefit plans can use the guidance provided in the final rule (and the included model notices) to furnish an annual notice of the plan's funded status to the plan's participants and beneficiaries and other specified interested parties (each labor organization representing such participants or beneficiaries, each employer that has an obligation to contribute under the plan, and the PBGC) as required by ERISA 101(f). The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0126. The current approval is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2023.
The final rule requires an initial registration filing and supplemental filings to report changes in the information in the initial filing, information about each specific pooled employer plan at its inception, and information on specified reportable events, time-sensitive knowledge of which will allow the Agencies to carry out their joint oversight responsibilities and for participating employers to be able to exercise their fiduciary duties to select and monitor pooled plan providers. The final rule requires a final filing once the provider's last pooled employer plan has been terminated and ceased operations.
The initial registration, supplemental filing, and final filing requirements will provide the Agencies with timely access to information needed to help them protect plan participants and beneficiaries and conduct effective monitoring and oversight of pooled employer plans and pooled plan providers as required by the SECURE Act. Without this kind of timely information, the Agencies would typically not learn of risks to a pooled employer plan until the plan files a Form 5500, possibly many months after the event (assuming the information was even required to be reported on the Form 5500), and when opportunities for protecting plan participants from financial injury have been missed. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0164. The current approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2023.
The Department is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Requests for District Director Action.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by April 10, 2023.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Anjanette Suggs by telephone at 202-354-9660 or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation, Division of Workers' Compensation, Room S3323, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
Contact Anjanette Suggs by telephone at 202-354-9660 or by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is
The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) requires covered employers to secure the payment of compensation under the Act and its extensions by purchasing insurance from a carrier authorized by the Secretary of Labor to write Longshore Act Insurance, or becoming authorized self-insured employers. Each authorized insurance carrier (or carrier seeking authorization) is required to establish annually that its Longshore obligations are fully secured either through an applicable state guaranty (or analogous fund), a deposit of security with the Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation (DLHWC), or a combination of both. Similarly, each authorized self-insurer (or employer seeking authorization) is required to fully secure its Longshore Act obligations by depositing security with DLHWC. These requirements are designed to assure the prompt and continued payment of compensation and other benefits by the responsible carrier or self-insurer to injured workers and their survivors. Forms LS-276, Application for Security Deposit Determination; LS-275-IC, Agreement and Undertaking (Insurance Carrier); and LS-275-SI, Agreement and Undertaking (Self-Insured Employer) are used to cover the submission of information by insurance carriers and self-insured employers regarding their ability to meet their financial obligations under the Longshore Act and its extensions. This information is currently approved through December 31, 2019. 33 U.S.C. 932 et seq. authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. These meetings will primarily take place at NSF's headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 30, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: February 8, 2023.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 30, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe” or the “Clearing House”) proposes to amend Part N1 of its Delivery Procedures (“Delivery Procedures” or “Procedures”) to update the delivery timetable for ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend Part N1 of the Delivery Procedures which applies to ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts (i) for which physical delivery is specified as being “Applicable” in the relevant Contract Terms, (ii) which go to physical delivery on the expiry date; and (iii) to which the Clearing House will announce by Circular that Part N1 specifically applies (such contracts “ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts”).
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the Delivery Procedures are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10)
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments to the Delivery Procedures are intended to make certain clarifications to the delivery timetable procedures applicable to the settlement of ICE Deliverable US Emissions Contracts. The amendments would not change the obligations of market participants. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments would adversely affect competition among Clearing Members, materially affect the cost of clearing, adversely affect access to clearing in the new contracts for Clearing Members or their customers, or otherwise adversely affect competition in clearing services. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the amendments would impose any impact or burden on competition that is not appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendment has not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2023-003. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to modify the fee for the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee.
By way of background, Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2) provides that the Exchange may establish one or more types of tier appointments and Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2)(B) provides such tier appointments are subject to such fees and charges the Exchange may establish. In 2010, the Exchange established the SPX Tier Appointment and adopted an initial fee of $3,000 per Market-Maker trading permit, per month.
In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to update Footnote 24 in the Fees Schedule, as well as remove the reference to Footnote 24 in the Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee Table. By way of background, in June 2020, the Exchange adopted Footnote 24 to describe pricing changes that would apply for the duration of time the Exchange trading floor was being operated in a modified manner in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. The SEC Division of Trading and Markets' Fee Guidance provides that in determining whether a proposed fee is constrained by significant competitive forces, the Commission will consider whether there are reasonable substitutes for the product or service that is the subject of a proposed fee.
The Exchange believes that competition in the marketplace constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees for access to its products exclusive to that market (“proprietary products”). Notably, just as there is no regulatory requirement to become a member of any one options exchange, there is also no regulatory requirement for any market participant to participate on the Exchange in any particular capacity nor trade any particular product. Additionally, there is no requirement that any Exchange create or indefinitely maintain any particular product.
Additionally, market participants may trade any options product, including proprietary products, in the unregulated Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets for which there is no requirement for fees related to those markets to be public. Given the benefits offered by trading options on a listed exchange, such as increased market transparency and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of the Options Clearing Corporation as issuer and guarantor, the Exchange generally seeks to incentivize market participants to trade options on an exchange, which further constrains fees that an Exchange may assess. Market participants may also access other exchanges to trade other similar or competing proprietary or multi-listed products. Alternative products to the Exchange's proprietary products may include other options products, including options on ETFs or options futures, as well as particular ETFs or futures. Particularly, exclusively listed SPX options (
Notably, the Commission itself has affirmed that notwithstanding the exclusive nature of SPX options, alternatives to this product exist in the marketplace. Particularly, in approving SPXPM (the PM-settled S&P 500 cash settled contract) on its affiliate exchange Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (which product was later transferred to the Exchange), the Commission stated that it “recognizes the potential impact on competition resulting from the inability of other options exchanges to list and trade SPXPM. In acting on this proposal, however, the Commission has balanced the potentially negative competitive effects with the countervailing positive competitive effects of C2's proposal. The Commission believes that the availability of SPXPM on the C2 exchange will enhance competition by providing investors with an additional investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to the S&P 500 stocks. Further, this product could offer a competitive alternative to other existing investment products that seek to allow investors to gain broad market exposure. Also, we note that it is possible for other exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or different index to compete with the S&P 500 index and seek Commission approval to list and trade options on such index.”
The economic equivalence of SPX and SPY options was further acknowledged and cited as a basis for the elimination of position limits for SPY options across the industry not long after the Commission's findings above in 2011.
Additionally, in connection with a previous proposed amendment to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT
Accordingly, if a market participant views the Exchange's proprietary products, including SPX and SPXW, as more or less attractive than the competition they can switch between similar products. As such, the Exchange is subject to competition and does not possess anti-competitive pricing power, even with its offering of proprietary products such as SPX.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as the Exchange believes it remains commensurate with the value of operating as a Market-Maker on the Exchange's trading floor in the SPX pit. For example, the Exchange recently transitioned from its previous trading floor, which it had occupied since the 1980s, to a brand new, modern and upgraded trading floor facility. The Exchange believes customers continue to find value in open outcry trading and rely on the floor for price discovery and the deep liquidity provided by floor Market-Makers. The build out of a new modern trading floor reflects the Exchange's commitment to open outcry trading and focus on providing the best possible trading experience for its customers, including Market-Makers. For example, the new trading floor provides a state-of-the-art environment and technology and more efficient use of physical space, which the Exchange believes better reflects and supports the current trading environment. The Exchange also believes the new infrastructure provides a cost-effective, streamlined, and modernized approach to floor connectivity. For example, the new trading floor has more than 330 individual kiosks, equipped with top-of-the-line technology, that enable floor participants to plug in and use their devices with greater ease and flexibility. It also provides floor Market-Makers with more space and increased capacity to support additional floor-based traders on the trading floor.
Indeed, notwithstanding the proposed fee change, Market-Maker presence on the new trading floor in SPX and SPXW has increased. Particularly, as of December 30, 2022, there are 12 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading floor as compared to May 2022 (which was the month prior to the proposed fee change being implemented on a permanent basis and transition to the new trading floor).
Also, as noted above, market participants are not obligated to trade on the Exchange's trading floor and therefore a market participant, including Market-Makers, can choose to trade a product electronically instead of on the Exchange's trading floor at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. In particular, SPX and SPXW open outcry volume currently accounts for only approximately 26% of total SPX and SPXW volume (
The Exchange finally believes its proposal to increase the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee is reasonable because the proposed amount is not significantly higher than was previously assessed (and is the same amount that has been assessed under Footnote 24 for the last two years). Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposal to increase the fee is reasonable as the fee amount has not been increased since it was adopted over 12 years ago in July 2010.
The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies to all Market-Makers that trade SPX on the trading floor uniformly. The Exchange believes it's reasonable equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the SPX/SPXW floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee and not the SPX/SPXW electronic Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee, as Floor Market-Makers are not subject to other costs that electronic Market-Makers are subject to. For example, while all Floor Market-Makers automatically have an appointment to trade open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange and at no additional cost per appointment, electronic Market-Makers must select an appointment in a class (such as SPX) to make markets electronically and such appointments are subject to fees under the Market-Maker Electronic Appointments Sliding Scale.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes would be applied in the same manner to all Floor Market-Makers that trade SPX (and/or SPXW). As noted above, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to increase the SPX/SPWX Tier Appointment Fee for only Floor Market-Makers only as opposed to electronic Market-Makers, because electronic Market-Makers are subject to costs Floor Market-Makers are not, such as the fees under Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding Scale.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule changes apply only to a fee relating to a product exclusively listed on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on (which, as described above, list products that compete with SPX options) and direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges (four of which also maintain physical trading floors), as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share of executed volume of options trades.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 8, 2022, NYSE Chicago, Inc. (“NYSE Chicago”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 5.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4683-DR), dated 01/14/2023.
Issued on 02/01/2023.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of California, dated 01/14/2023, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA-4683-DR), dated 01/26/2023.
Issued on 02/01/2023.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of California, dated 01/26/2023, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Record of decision.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has decided to adopt the preferred alternative identified in its final environmental impact statement (Final EIS) for the Moore County Solar Project. The Final EIS was made available to the public on December 9, 2022. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIS was published in the
To access and review the Final EIS, this Record of Decision (ROD), and other project documents, go to TVA's website at
Ashley Pilakowski, NEPA Project Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902; telephone 865-632-2256; or email
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 through 1508) and TVA's procedures (18 CFR 1318) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TVA is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving 10 million people in the Tennessee Valley—an 80,000-square-mile region comprised of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. TVA receives no taxpayer funding and derives virtually all revenues from the sale of electricity. In addition to operating and investing revenues in its power system, TVA provides flood control, navigation, and land management for the Tennessee Valley watershed and provides economic development and job creation assistance within the Service area.
In June 2019, TVA completed its 2019 IRP and associated EIS. The 2019 IRP, which updated the 2015 IRP, identified the various resources that TVA intends to use to meet the energy needs of the TVA region over a 20-year planning period, while achieving TVA's objectives to deliver reliable, low-cost, and cleaner energy with fewer environmental impacts. The 2019 IRP recommends the expansion of solar generating capacity of up to 14,000 MW by 2038.
TVA has prepared an EIS pursuant to NEPA to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action to execute a PPA with SR Tullahoma to purchase power generated by the proposed 200-MW AC solar PV facility, which would occupy an approximately 1,873-acre portion of the Project Site, include the construction of an on-site 161-kV substation and switchyard, and include the interconnection of the solar PV facility to the existing adjacent Franklin-Wartrace No. 2 161-kV TL and associated network upgrades.
TVA considered a no action and one action alternative in the Draft EIS and Final EIS.
The No Action Alternative would result in the lowest level of environmental impacts as the impacts associated with construction and operation of the solar facility would not occur. However, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project. Overall, environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would be minor to moderate with the implementation of BMPs and
Construction of the Project would result in minor impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-jurisdictional ephemeral streams and wetlands, non-USACE-jurisdictional ditches and open waters, and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)-regulated wetlands for road crossings, solar panel arrays and solar panel blocks. These impacts would be permitted by Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404/401 permits through USACE and TDEC, as applicable to the jurisdiction of these waters. In accordance with TVA requirements, 50-foot buffers surrounding wetlands and non-impaired perennial and intermittent streams and 60-foot buffers surrounding impaired perennial and intermittent streams on the Project Site would be maintained as avoidance measures.
The Project land use would change from primarily forest management, including timbering operations, and some agricultural activities to industrial uses. Regenerative agricultural practices planned in association with the Project (
Approximately 850 acres of forest that potentially provide high- to low-quality summer roosting habitat for endangered and threatened bats would be cleared during winter months as much as feasible, when bats are not likely to be present on the Project Site. The TL upgrade work would be carried out in a manner to avoid impacts to endangered species. TVA has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and USFWS concurred with TVA's determination that the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed gray bat, Indiana bat, and northern long-eared bat. Impacts to the two state listed reptile species, eastern slender glass lizard and northern pine snake, and the two bird species, Bachman's sparrow and common barn owl, would be localized and minor. The Project would have no effect on the other federally listed species that were identified as having the potential to occur on or near the Project Site.
The Project would not adversely affect the National Register of Historic Places-eligible Motlow House, located adjacent to the Project Site due to forested screening and its distance of 0.2 to 0.5 miles from the Project. The Project would avoid the Old Jabel Ray Homeplace Cemetery by a minimum 250-foot avoidance buffer and, thus, not visually affect the cemetery. TVA consulted with the Tennessee Historical Commission and federally recognized Indian tribes under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding these findings and avoidance measures.
On May 3, 2021, TVA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
TVA released the Draft EIS for public review in April 2022. The NOA for the Draft EIS was published in the
TVA certifies, in accordance with 40 CFR 1505.2(b), that the agency has considered all of the alternatives, information, analyses, material in the record determined to be relevant, and submitted by State, Tribal, and local governments and public commenters for consideration in developing the Final EIS. TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative of the EIS, which would result in the construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of the proposed solar PV facility, as well as the construction, operation, and maintenance of a
SR Tullahoma and TVA would employ standard practices and routine measures and other project-specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. SR Tullahoma and TVA would also implement minimization and mitigation measures based on BMPs, permit requirements, and adherence to erosion and sediment control plans. Non-routine mitigation measures associated with land use and soils, biological, visual and public health, safety and transportation are included below:
○ Utilize SRC's regenerative energy program, including perennial and annual, non-invasive pollinator-attractive plantings, biological vegetation management (
○ Avoid siting Project components and managing SRC's regenerative energy program in identified sensitive plant and animal resource areas (except for buried or overhead electrical lines within 50 feet of Raysville and Cumberland Springs roads) in accordance with an Avoidance Agreement between TVA and SR Tullahoma (Appendix A of the Final EIS), and
○ Install signage and/or temporary construction fencing around avoidance areas and identify avoidance areas on site plans and constraints maps;
○ Install and maintain 60-foot-wide vegetative buffer along the Project fence perimeter where the facility would otherwise be visible from public rights-of-way and residences in accordance with
○ In accordance with Federal Aviation Administration recommendations, file Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, any time the Project is abandoned or within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The meeting will be held, on February 28, 2023, from 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. ET. Request to attend the meeting virtually must be received by February 17, 2023. Request for accommodations for a disability must be received by February 17, 2023. If you wish to make a public statement during the meeting, you must submit a written copy of your remarks by February 17, 2023. Written materials requested to be reviewed by NAC Members before the meeting must be received no later than February 17, 2023.
The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591 with a virtual option. Virtual meeting information will be provided upon request at the time of registration. Information on the NAC, including copies of previous meeting minutes, is available on the NAC internet website at
Kimberly Noonan, NAC Coordinator, U.S. Department of Transportation, at
The Secretary of Transportation established the NAC under agency authority in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, to provide independent advice and recommendations to the FAA and to respond to specific taskings received directly from the FAA. The NAC recommends consensus-driven advice for FAA consideration relating to Air Traffic Management System modernization.
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
The detailed agenda will be posted on the NAC internet website at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend are asked to register via email by submitting their full legal name, country of citizenship, contact information (telephone number and email address), and name of your industry association, or applicable affiliation, and if they would like to attend the meeting in-person or virtually. Please email this information to the email address listed in the
Only NAC Members, members of the public who have registered to make a public statement, and NAC working groups and FAA staff who are providing briefings will have the ability to speak. All other attendees will be able to listen-only.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to
Five minutes will be allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. This time may be extended if there is a significant number of members of the public wishing to provide an oral comment. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the FAA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are required to submit a copy of their prepared remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to NAC members to the person listed under the heading
Members of the public may submit written statements for inclusion in the meeting records and circulation to the NAC members. Written statements need to be submitted to the person listed under the heading
Signed in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed airworthiness criteria.
The FAA announces the availability of and requests comments on proposed airworthiness criteria for the Wing Aviation LLC Model Hummingbird unmanned aircraft (UA). This document proposes the airworthiness criteria that the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable for the UA design.
Send comments on or before March 10, 2023.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-1763 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christopher J. Richards, Emerging Aircraft Strategic Policy Section, AIR-618, Strategic Policy Management Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 103, Minneapolis, MN 55450, telephone (612) 253-4559.
The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.
Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR 11.35), the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these airworthiness criteria based on received comments.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to these proposed airworthiness criteria contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these proposed airworthiness criteria, it is
Wing Aviation LLC (Wing) applied to the FAA on September 19, 2018, for a special class type certificate under 14 CFR 21.17(b) for the Model Hummingbird UA.
The Model Hummingbird consists of a fixed-wing airplane UA and its associated elements (AE) including communication links and components that control the UA. The Model Hummingbird UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of approximately 15 pounds. It is approximately 3.4 feet in width, 4.2 feet in length, and 9.4 inches in height. The Model Hummingbird UA is battery powered using electric motors for vertical takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Wing intends for the Model Hummingbird to be used to deliver packages. The proposed concept of operations for the Model Hummingbird includes a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level, a maximum cruise speed of 68 knots, operations beyond visual line of sight, and operations over people. Wing has not requested approval for flight into known icing for the Model Hummingbird.
Under 14 CFR 21.17(c), an application for type certification is effective for 3 years. Section 21.17(d) provides that where a type certificate has not been issued within that 3-year time limit, the applicant may file for an extension and update the designated applicable regulations in the type certification basis. The effective date of the applicable airworthiness requirements for the updated type certification basis must not be earlier than 3 years before the date of issue of the type certificate. Since the project was not certificated within 3 years after the application date above, the FAA approved the applicant's request to extend the project. The date of the updated type certification basis is September 26, 2022, with the applicant's proposed type certificate issuance date of December 31, 2023.
The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. UA are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.
The applicant has proposed a design with constraints upon its operations and an unusual design characteristic: the pilot is remotely located. The FAA developed existing airworthiness standards to establish an appropriate level of safety for each product and its intended use. The FAA's existing airworthiness standards did not envision aircraft with no pilot in the flight deck and the technologies associated with that capability.
The FAA has reviewed the proposed design and assessed the potential risk to the National Airspace System. The FAA considered the size of the proposed aircraft, its maximum airspeed and altitude, and operational limitations to address the number of unmanned aircraft per operator and to address operations in which the aircraft would operate beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot. These factors allowed the FAA to assess the potential risk the aircraft could pose to other aircraft and to human beings on the ground. Using these parameters, the FAA developed airworthiness criteria to address those potential risks to ensure the aircraft remains reliable, controllable, safe, and airworthy.
The proposed criteria focus on mitigating hazards by establishing safety outcomes that must be achieved, rather than by establishing prescriptive requirements that must be met. This is in contrast to many current airworthiness standards, used to certificate traditional aircraft systems, which prescribe specific indicators and instruments for a pilot in a flightdeck that would be inappropriate for UA. The FAA finds that the proposed criteria are appropriate and applicable for the UA design, based on the intended operational concepts for the UA as identified by the applicant.
The FAA selected the particular airworthiness criteria proposed by this notice for the following reasons:
As explained in FAA Policy Memorandum AIR600-21-AIR-600-PM01, dated July 13, 2021, the FAA will approve either the specific AE or minimum specifications for the AE, as identified by the applicant, as part of the type certificate by including them as an operating limitation in the type certificate data sheet and flight manual. The FAA may impose additional operating limitations specific to the AE through conditions and limitations for inclusion in the operational approval (
The current regulations for the certification of systems, equipment, and installations (
To address the risks to the UA associated with intentional unauthorized electronic interactions, the applicant would be required to design the UAS's systems and networks to protect against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions and mitigate potential adverse effects. The FAA based the language for the proposed criteria on recommendations in the final report dated August 22, 2016, from the Aircraft System Information Security/Protection (ASISP) working group, under the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Although the recommendations pertained to manned aircraft, the FAA has reviewed the report and determined the recommendations are also appropriate for UA. The wireless connections used by UA make these aircraft susceptible to the same cyber security risks, and therefore require similar criteria as manned aircraft.
To address the risks associated with loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, and thus the pilot's inability to control the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the UA be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action. Because the pilot needs to be aware of the particular predetermined action the UA will take when there is a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the applicant identify the predetermined action in the UA Flight Manual. The proposed criteria would also include requirements for preventing takeoff when quality of service is inadequate.
For some aircraft design requirements imposed by existing airworthiness standards (
Flight testing will be used to determine the aircraft's ability to withstand flight loads across the range of operating limits and the flight envelope. Because of the size of this UA, it may be subjected to significant ground loads when handled, lifted, carried, loaded, maintained, and transported physically by hand; therefore, the proposed criteria would require that the aircraft used for testing endure the same worst-case ground loads as those the UA will experience in operation after type certification.
The proposed criteria contain functions that require demonstration of the capability of the UA to maintain its preplanned flight path within acceptable navigation accuracy. This includes not just a single pre-planned route, but also requires that the preplanned path take into account contingency actions that will be carried out in the event the UA needs to avoid or leave specific airspace. For example, if another aircraft is in the original preplanned airspace or Air Traffic Control commands avoidance of airspace while the UA is in flight, the aircraft must have the capability to avoid any such airspace through preplanned contingency flight paths. This must be shown by test in such a way that the navigational accuracy of the aircraft in flight is demonstrated to successfully avoid the restricted airspace.
The proposed criteria also identify that the UA must have the ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around unless the UA is shown not to create a hazard when landing. In order to show that the UA does not create a hazard when landing, the UA must show by test that it has the ability to detect and avoid any potential hazards on the ground by demonstrating any such landing always stays well clear of all people and other obstacles.
In the event an applicant requests approval for certain features, such as geo-fencing or external cargo, the proposed criteria contain requirements to address the associated risks. The proposed criteria in this section would also require design of the UA to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.
These proposed airworthiness criteria, established under the provisions of § 21.17(b), are applicable to the Model Hummingbird UA. Should Wing Aviation LLC apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model, these airworthiness criteria would apply to that model as well, provided the FAA finds them appropriate in accordance with the requirements of subpart D to part 21.
This action affects only the airworthiness criteria for one model UA. It is not a standard of general applicability.
The authority citation for these airworthiness criteria is as follows:
The FAA proposes to establish the following airworthiness criteria for type certification of the Wing Aviation LLC Model Hummingbird UA. The FAA proposes that compliance with the following would mitigate the risks associated with the proposed design and Concept of Operations appropriately and would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing rules:
The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operation in the National Airspace System for which unmanned aircraft
(a) The intended type of operations;
(b) UA specifications;
(c) Meteorological conditions;
(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;
(e) Control station, support equipment, and other associated elements (AE) necessary to meet the airworthiness criteria;
(f) Command, control, and communication functions;
(g) Operational parameters (such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation); and
(h) Collision avoidance equipment, whether onboard the UA or part of the AE, if requested.
For purposes of these airworthiness criteria, the following definitions apply.
(a)
(b)
The UA must be designed to monitor and transmit to the AE all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:
(a) Status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems;
(b) Status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems;
(c) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location; and
(d) Communication and navigation signal strength and quality, including contingency information or status.
(a) The applicant must identify and submit to the FAA all AE and interface conditions of the UAS that affect the airworthiness of the UA or are otherwise necessary for the UA to meet these airworthiness criteria. As part of this requirement—
(1) The applicant may identify either specific AE or minimum specifications for the AE.
(i) If minimum specifications are identified, they must include the critical requirements of the AE, including performance, compatibility, function, reliability, interface, operator alerting, cyber security, and environmental requirements.
(ii) Critical requirements are those that if not met would impact the ability to operate the UA safely and efficiently.
(2) The applicant may use an interface control drawing, a requirements document, or other reference, titled so that it is clearly designated as AE interfaces to the UA.
(b) The applicant must show the FAA that the AE or minimum specifications identified in paragraph (a) of this section meet the following:
(1) The AE provide the functionality, performance, reliability, and information to assure UA airworthiness in conjunction with the rest of the design;
(2) The AE are compatible with the UA capabilities and interfaces;
(3) The AE must monitor and transmit to the operator all information required for safe flight and operation, including but not limited to those identified in D&R.100; and
(4) The minimum specifications, if identified, are correct, complete, consistent, and verifiable to assure UA airworthiness.
(c) The FAA will establish the approved AE or minimum specifications as operating limitations and include them in the UA type certificate data sheet and Flight Manual.
(d) The applicant must develop any maintenance instructions necessary to address implications from the AE on the airworthiness of the UA. Those instructions will be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) required by D&R.205.
To minimize the existence of software errors, the applicant must:
(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UA;
(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and
(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.
(a) UA equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UA. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.
(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the ICA.
(a) The UA must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the command and control (C2) link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.
(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UA Flight Manual.
(c) The UA Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link, defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UA Flight Manual.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UA must have design characteristics that will protect the UA from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.
(b) If the UA has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UA Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.
(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UA must have design characteristics that will allow the UA to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.
(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UA is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:
(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or
(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UA is not certificated to operate and show the UA's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.
(a) A flight essential part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UA control.
(b) If the type design includes flight essential parts, the applicant must establish a flight essential parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of flight essential parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the ICA.
The applicant must provide a Flight Manual with each UA.
(a) The UA Flight Manual must contain the following information:
(1) UA operating limitations;
(2) UA operating procedures;
(3) Performance information;
(4) Loading information; and
(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.
(b) Those portions of the UA Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be approved by the FAA.
The applicant must prepare the ICA for the UA in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UA or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.
The UA must be designed to be durable and reliable when operated under the limitations prescribed for its operating environment, as documented in its CONOPS and included as operating limitations on the type certificate data sheet and in the UA Flight Manual. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.
(a) Once a UA has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.
(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Flight distances;
(2) Flight durations;
(3) Route complexity;
(4) Weight;
(5) Center of gravity;
(6) Density altitude;
(7) Outside air temperature;
(8) Airspeed;
(9) Wind;
(10) Weather;
(11) Operation at night, if requested;
(12) Energy storage system capacity; and
(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.
(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.
(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and high intensity radiated fields (HIRF).
(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.
(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.
(h) Any UA used for testing must use AE that meet, but do not exceed, the minimum specifications identified under D&R.105. If multiple AE are identified, the applicant must demonstrate each configuration.
(i) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UA Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.
(j) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or the external load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—
(1) The UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and
(2) The cargo or the external load is retainable and transportable.
The UA must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.
(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed:
(1) Propulsion systems;
(2) C2 link;
(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);
(4) Flight control components with a single point of failure;
(5) Control station; and
(6) Any other AE identified by the applicant.
(b) Any UA used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UA Flight Manual.
(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.
(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:
(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.
(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.
(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.
(4) Capability of the UA to maintain its preplanned flight path within acceptable navigation accuracy.
(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.
(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around unless the UA is shown not to create a hazard when landing.
(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:
(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.
(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.
(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.
(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.
(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.
(c) The UA must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external load.
The structure of the UA must be shown to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.
The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UA Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to submit one information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by March 10, 2023.
You may submit comments identified by Docket ID FHWA 2023-0003 by any of the following methods:
While HCR has created guidance for State DOTs to follow in creating their SOWs, currently are submitted in paper form and the contents and size of the submissions vary. Providing State DOTs with a SOW template available through the Civil Rights Connect System will streamline the SOW creation, submission, review, and approval process.
The information required to populate the DBE/SS SOW template is based on existing requirements found in 23 CFR 230, Subpart C; therefore, State DOTs should have information to populate the SOW readily available. The information will merely be entered in an electronic fillable form as opposed to submitting a paper copy. The electronic system will also directly pre-populate the State's Annual Accomplishment Report with the metrices identified in the State's SOW. This feature further streamlines the reporting process by eliminating the States' need to duplicate language from the SOW into the Annual Report. This feature will also allow HCR to more easily pair the performance metrics with their accomplishments in reviewing the State's Annual DBE/SS Report.
While the requirements will not change, use of the SOW template will benefit State DOTs and FHWA by making the submissions more uniform in size and content and streamlining the submission and review process. This will ultimately allow HCR to allocate funding in a more timely manner that will directly benefit DBEs, an important piece of the Department's and FHWA's equity initiative.
Janelle Hinton, (202) 366-1604/
You are asked to comment on any aspect of these information collections, including: (1) Whether the proposed collections are necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burdens could be minimized, including use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of these information collections.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Treasury.
Notice and request for public comment.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Transaction Level Report (TLR) for the New Markets Tax Credit Program (NMTC Program).
Written comments must be received on or before April 10, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments via email to Shannon McKay, Program Manager, Office Financial Strategies and Research, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, at
Shannon McKay, Program Manager for Office of Financial Strategies and Research, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20220 or by phone at (202) 653-0300. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained through the CDFI Fund's website at
This information is used to assess: (1) The Allocatee's activities as detailed in its application materials; (2) the Allocatee's approved use of the allocation; (3) the Allocatee's financial condition; (4) the socio-economic characteristics of Allocatee's borrowers/investees, loan and investment terms, repayment status, and community development outcomes; and (5) overall compliance with the terms and conditions of the allocation agreement entered into by the CDFI Fund and the Allocatee.
For the NMTC TLR, to address the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations in its July 2014 report
For fees and transaction costs, 12 out of 13 TLR data points have been revised to ensure that they are mutually exclusive and align with required QALICB disclosures and the Allocation Application. In addition, all data points will be reported as actual dollar amounts. Three TLR data points are proposed to be eliminated due to a lack of usage (Other Sources of Compensation and Profits Charged to Investors; Other Sources of Compensation and Profits Charged to Borrowers/Investees; Other Sources of Compensation and Profits Charged to Other Entities). The revised data points are:
• Total QEI Proceeds Retained by the CDE or CDE Affiliate;
• Upfront Fees to the CDE or CDE Affiliate;
• Upfront Fees to Investors or Investor Affiliates;
• Upfront Fees to Unaffiliated Third Parties;
• Upfront Transaction Costs;
• Ongoing Fees to the CDE or CDE Affiliate;
• Ongoing Fees Paid to Investors or Investor Affiliates;
• Ongoing Fees to Unaffiliated Third Parties;
• Ongoing Transaction Costs;
• Back-end Fees to CDE or CDE Affiliates;
• Back-end Fees to Investors or Investor Affiliates;
• Back-end Fees to Unaffiliated Third Parties; and
• Back-end Transaction Costs.
To better measure the depth of public subsidy, a new data point (Estimated Annual Net Operating Income) will be added to the NMTC Allocatee TLR, as well as revised TLR guidance for the existing data point on “Total Project Cost Public Sources”.
The proposed addition and changes to the outcome reporting in the NMTC Allocatee TLR affect the data points related to job creation and retention; quality of jobs; accessible jobs; type of business loans; financing of minority-owned or controlled businesses; commercial and community goods and services; and environmental outcomes. The changes include:
• Projected Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs to Be Created or Retained at Businesses Financed (new data point);
• Actual Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs Created or Retained at Businesses Financed (new data point);
• Job Quality Measures (new data point);
• Identify Accessible Jobs Measure (new data point);
• Number of Accessible Jobs (new data point);
• Type of Business Loan (new data point);
• Minority-Owned or Controlled Businesses (revised data point);
• Native American-Owned or Controlled Businesses (new data point);
• Number of People Served by Commercial Goods or Services (new data point);
• Number of People Served by Community Goods or Services (new data point);
• Number of Households Served by Infrastructure Services (new data point);
• Identify Environmental Restoration and/or Sustainability Outcome Measure (new data point); and
• Quantify Environmental Restoration and/or Sustainability Outcome (new data point).
In order to better assess compliance with certain terms and conditions of the Allocation Agreement when a QLICI is originated, the following five data points are proposed:
• Below Market Interest Rate at origination (new data point);
• Blended Interest Rate at origination (new data point);
• Comparable Blended Interest Rate at origination (new data point);
• What is Interest Rate Comparable at origination? (new data point); and
• Interest Rate Comparable at Origination—Other (new data point).
In addition, the CDFI Fund proposes to eliminate the following data points that are no longer relevant in assessing compliance given that they relate to data points after origination:
• Below Market Interest Rate the end of the reporting period.
• Blended Interest Rate the end of the reporting period.
• Comparable Blended Interest Rate the end of the reporting period.
• Below Market Interest Rates or Flexible Terms Required under Allocation Agreement.
• Below Market Interest Rate at the end of the reporting period.
• What is Interest Rate Comparable at the end of the reporting period?
• Interest Rate Comparable—Other.
• Interest Rate Financial Note Terms at the end of the reporting period.
More details on the changes described above can be found in the updated guidance document available on the CDFI Fund website at
Please note this request for public comment only includes the NMTC TLR. The CDFI Fund intends to release a separate RFI for the CDFI Program TLR as well as requesting a separate OMB number at a later point in time.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing updates to the identifying information of one person currently included OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
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 Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On February 1, 2023, OFAC updated the entry on the SDN List for the following person, whose property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction continue to be blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. RIVERA ZAZUETA, Jose Angel (a.k.a. RIVERA SALAS, Miguel Angel), Mexico; DOB 15 Aug 1987; POB Sinaloa, Mexico; nationality Mexico; citizen Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. RIZA870815HSLVZN00 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
-to-
RIVERA ZAZUETA, Jose Angel (a.k.a. RIVERA SALAS, Miguel Angel), Mexico; DOB 15 Aug 1987; alt. DOB 15 Dec 1987; POB Sinaloa, Mexico; nationality Mexico; citizen Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. RIZA870815HSLVZN00 (Mexico); alt. C.U.R.P. RISM871215HMCVLG00 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8233, Exemption From Withholding on Compensation for Independent (and Certain Dependent) Personal Services of a Nonresident Alien Individual.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Jon Callahan, (737) 800-7639, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for United States Mint numismatic products in accordance with the table below:
Jennifer Creque; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 1-800-354-8489.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 10, 2023.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 10, 2023.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sets forth the duties owed to VA when Veterans and VA beneficiaries who received medical care and treatment provided or paid for by VA, or those acting on their behalf, pursue personal injury claims.
This notification is effective upon publication.
Ms. Debra Vatthauer, Office of Finance, Revenue Operations, Payer Relations and Services, Rates and Charges (104RO1), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 128 Bingham Road, Suite 1000, Asheville, NC 28806; telephone: 608-335-8370 (this is not a toll-free number).
Under 38 U.S.C. 1729 and 42 U.S.C. 2651, VA has the right to recover or collect from a third party or parties the reasonable charges for certain medical care and treatment furnished, to be furnished, paid for or to be paid for by VA. Under 38 CFR 2.6(e)(3) and (e)(9), the authority of the Secretary of VA is delegated to VA's Office of General Counsel “to collect in full, compromise, settle, or waive any claim and execute the release thereof” for all claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 2651 and 38 U.S.C. 1729. See also 38 CFR 14.619. Based on this delegation, the authority under 28 CFR 43.1(b) and 43.2(a) and so VA can fulfill all statutory and regulatory requirements, all Veterans and Veterans' beneficiaries, or those individuals acting on their behalf, have a duty to:
(a) Furnish such information as may be requested concerning the circumstances giving rise to the injury or disease for which care and treatment is being given and concerning any action instituted or to be instituted by or against a third person;
(b) Notify VA of a settlement with or any offer of settlement from a third person; and
(c) Cooperate in the prosecution of all claims and actions by the United States against such third person.
These duties necessitate affirmative verification, or e-verification, to identify all Veterans, or Veterans' beneficiaries, who may exist within any member class including class action lawsuits, multi-district litigation or other similar mass tort litigation.
Under 38 CFR 17.47(g)(2), VA requires the completion and submission of the billing request form provided at
Please note that any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements, representations or omissions are subject to criminal penalties including fines and/or imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. 287, 1001. Also, please note that failure to properly notify and pay VA could implicate the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, prompt payment requirements, and insurance regulations. It also could result in the payment of attorneys' fees, fines for each violation and treble damages up to the prescriptive statute of limitations period. In particular, section 3729(a)(1)(G) of the FCA, the reverse false claims provision provides liability where one conspires or acts improperly to avoid an obligation to pay the Federal Government. Moreover, FCA also provides for liability where one is in possession of money or property belonging to the Federal Government and fails to transmit that money or property to the Federal Government. 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(D). In addition to FCA, VA may refer the payment obligation to the United States Department of the Treasury for collection. See 31 U.S.C. 3711
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 2, 2023, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.