Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Justice Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
This final rule amends Marketing Order No. 984, which regulates the handling of walnuts grown in California. USDA approved and adopted amendments proposed by the California Walnut Board (the Board) after due consideration of a public hearing record, and after California walnut producers voted in favor of such amendments in a referendum. This rule eliminates mandatory inspection and certification of inshell and shelled walnuts, and of shelled walnuts for processing; creates a new mechanism for determining and collecting handler assessments; adds the authority to charge interest for late payments; establishes an assessment rate of $0.0125 per inshell pound of walnuts; expands the definition of “to handle” to include “receive”; and removes volume control authority. In addition, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) made necessary changes to the marketing order to conform to the amendments adopted.
This rule is effective September 20, 2023.
Geronimo Quinones, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 308-2339 or Matthew Pavone, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on this proceeding by contacting Richard E. Lower, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing published in the April 1, 2022, issue of the
This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
Notice of this rulemaking action was provided to Tribal governments through the USDA Office of Tribal Relations.
This action finalizes amendments to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California. Part 984 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The final rule was formulated on the record of a public hearing held via videoconference technology on April 19 and 20, 2022. The hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Act, and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900). Notice of this hearing was published in the
Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record thereof, the Administrator of AMS on November 4, 2022, filed with the Hearing Clerk, USDA, a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto by November 25, 2022. No exceptions were filed.
A Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order published in the
The amendments favored by voters included in this final rule remove from the Order quality and size regulations, including mandatory inspection and
AMS also recommended changes as necessary to the Order to conform to the amendments adopted, or to correct minor inconsistencies and typographical errors. Accordingly, AMS did the following: added language regarding exemptions in § 984.67; removed the reference to the term “merchantable” in § 984.22 and from the headings and paragraphs in §§ 984.72 and 984.472(a) and (c); revised the heading in § 984.21 from “Eligibility” to “Handler inventory”; revised §§ 984.69(e) and 984.89(b)(4) to replace the term “fiscal period” with “marketing year”; revised the figure in § 984.347; and revised 984.69(e) to replace “current season's certifications” with “current marketing year”.
AMS reinserted language regarding exemptions under § 984.67 after determining that the language was inadvertently omitted in a prior rulemaking conducted in May 2020. AMS removed the term “merchantable” in § 984.22 and from the headings and paragraphs in §§ 984.72 and 984.472(a) and (c) after determining that there would be no grade and size regulations in effect to distinguish “merchantable” walnuts from other walnuts due to the elimination of mandatory inspection and certification. AMS revised the heading in § 984.21 from “Eligibility” to “Handler inventory” after determining that the heading, “Eligibility”, did not reflect the purposes of the provision, which defines handler inventory. AMS revised §§ 984.69(e) and 984.89(b)(4) to replace the term “fiscal period” with “marketing year” after determining that the term “fiscal period” is not defined in the Order, whereas “marketing year” is defined and already used throughout the Order. This rule revises § 984.347 to establish an assessment rate of $0.0125 per pound of inshell walnuts.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), AMS considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit. The RFA requires, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small businesses affected by the rule. This regulatory flexibility analysis estimates the proportion of small businesses because it is not feasible to estimate numbers.
According to the hearing record, there are approximately 4,500 producers and 85 handlers in the production area. Record evidence includes reference to a study showing that the walnut industry contributes 85,000 jobs to the economy, directly and indirectly.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) establishes size standards that determine whether a business entity is defined as a small business. The size standards are based on the entity's economic activity, or industry, and generally use the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The size standards are expressed in annual receipts in millions of dollars or in number of employees, and indicate the maximum allowed for an entity to be considered a small business.
The SBA defines small agricultural service firms (handlers) as those having annual receipts (sales) equal to or less than $34 million (Postharvest Crop Activities, NAICS code 115114). Small walnut producers are defined as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3.75 million (Tree Nut Farming, NAICS code 111335). (
Effective May 2, 2022, SBA issued a final rule updating small business size standards for agriculture (86 FR 18607). The tree nut farming (NAICS 111335) size standard changed from $1 million to $3.25 million. Effective December 19, 2022, SBA issued a final rule again updating the tree nut size small business size standard, raising it to $3.75 million.
The witnesses who identified themselves as small producers did so using the SBA size standard in effect at the time of the hearing ($1.0 million of gross annual receipts); they are also small under the current standard of $3.75 million of gross annual receipts.
Record evidence showed that approximately 82 percent of California walnut handlers (70 out of 85) shipped walnuts valued under $34 million during the 2018-2019 marketing year and would therefore be considered small handlers according to the SBA definition.
Data in the hearing record from the 2017 Agricultural Census, published by USDA'S National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), showed that 4,885 California farms growing walnuts (86.06 percent of the total) had walnut sales of less than $1 million which is well below the SBA small business size threshold of equal to or less than $3.75 million. In the 2017 Agricultural Census, the largest sales value size category for walnuts was $1.0 million.
To obtain an alternative estimate of the number and percentage of small walnut farms, using NASS data from the hearing record, the first step was computing a 3-year average crop value, which was roughly $1.077 billion for the period 2018-19 to 2020-21. The average walnut bearing acreage over that same 3-year period was 372,500 acres. Dividing crop value by bearing acreage shows a per acre revenue estimate of $2,891. Using these numbers, it would take approximately 1,297 acres ($3,750,000 divided by $2,891) to yield roughly $3,750,000 in annual walnut sales. The 2017 Agricultural Census data show that 5,330 walnut farms in 2017 (93.9 percent of the total) were below 1,000 acres. One thousand acres is the Census size category closest to the 1,297-acre estimate for an average walnut farm to have $3.75 million in annual receipts). Therefore, 5,330 of the California walnut farms counted in the 2017 Agricultural Census (93.9 percent or more), would be considered small businesses according to the current SBA definition of $3.75 million or less in gross annual receipts.
During the hearing held April 19 and 20, 2022, interested parties were invited to present evidence on the probable regulatory impact of the amendments to the Order on small businesses. The hearing record showed that none of the
This action amends the Order to eliminate mandatory inspection and certification of inshell and shelled walnuts, and of shelled walnuts for processing; create a new mechanism for determining and collecting handler assessments; add the authority to charge interest for late payments; establish an assessment rate of $0.0125 per inshell pound of walnuts; expand the definition of “to handle” to include “receive”; and remove volume control authority.
The hearing record showed that a key reason for the amendments is to reduce the costs and administrative burden to handlers and the Board while providing a cost savings to growers. Witnesses (both large and small) testified to major technological improvements in sorting, processing and storage, and the adoption of new varieties, as key evidence of how current industry practices result in walnut quality that exceeds USDA standards, making the mandatory inspection requirement redundant. Record evidence also showed that the elimination of mandatory inspection and certification will result in cost savings of approximately $6 million per year and will benefit all handlers and producers.
The new assessment mechanism is based on walnuts received instead of walnuts certified, and the calculation of assessments is based on receipts submitted to the Board. Invoicing begins after January 15, and billings are generated in January, April, and July and as prescribed by the Board. Payments are due to the Board in February, May, and August. Hearing evidence showed that this new mechanism is an equitable change that decreases the administrative burden for all handlers and the Board.
Hearing evidence also showed that producers and handlers of all sizes will benefit from the amendments adopted and that there will be no negative implications on small agricultural firms. Handlers will benefit from reduced operational process redundancies, resulting in lower associated costs and administrative burdens. In addition, producers will benefit from higher grower returns through cost savings passed on from increased handler efficiencies. Consumers are also anticipated to benefit from lower prices resulting from reduced handler costs.
Lastly, the volume control authority in the Order has been suspended for over 30 years. The record showed that a key reason for removing volume control authority from the Order is that the walnut industry is comprised of mostly small businesses which do not intend to use volume regulation in the future.
These amendments align the Order with current market-driven practices that result in a more efficient industry for producers and handlers of all sizes. USDA did not identify any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule. These amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the Order and to assist in the marketing of California walnuts.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Current information collection requirements that are part of the Federal marketing order for California walnuts (7 CFR part 984) are approved under OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetables and Specialty Crops. No changes in these requirements are anticipated because of this proceeding. Should any such changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
The amendments to the Order herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. The amendments do not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under § 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations that were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public hearing was held upon proposed further amendment of Marketing Order No. 984, regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California.
Upon the basis of the record, it is found that:
(1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, regulates the handling of walnuts grown in the production area in the same manner as, and is applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which a hearing has been held;
(3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, is limited in its application to the smallest regional production area that is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
(4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such
(5) All handling of walnuts grown in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of walnuts grown in California shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the said order as hereby amended as follows:
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the Order contained in the Recommended Decision published in the October 25, 2022, issue of the
Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 984 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(b) Nominations for handler members shall be submitted on ballots mailed by the Board to all handlers in their respective Districts. All handlers' votes shall be weighted by the weight of inshell walnuts handled by each handler during the preceding marketing year. Each handler in the production area may vote for handler member nominees and their alternates. However, no handler with less than 35% of the crop shall have more than one member and one alternate member. The person receiving the highest number of votes for each handler member position shall be the nominee for that position.
(c) * * *
(4) Nominations for handler members representing handlers that do not handle 35% or more of the crop shall be submitted on ballots mailed by the Board to those handlers. The votes of these handlers shall be weighted by the weight of inshell walnuts handled by each handler during the preceding marketing year. Each handler in the production area may vote for handler member nominees and their alternates of this paragraph (c)(4). However, no handler shall have more than one person on the Board either as member or alternate member. The person receiving the highest number of votes for a handler member position of this paragraph (c)(4) shall be the nominee for that position.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Each marketing year the Board shall hold a meeting, prior to October 20, for the purpose of recommending to the Secretary a marketing policy for such year. Each year such recommendation shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of at least 60% of the Board and shall include the following:
(a) The Board may recommend, subject to the approval of the Secretary, regulations that:
(1) Establish handling requirements for particular grades, sizes, or qualities, or any combination thereof, of any or all varieties or classifications of walnuts during any period;
(2) Establish different handling requirements and tolerance limits for particular grades, sizes, or qualities, or any combination thereof, for different market destinations;
(3) Establish different handling requirements for the processing of shelled walnuts and the handling thereof; and
(4) Establish inspection and certification requirements for the purposes of this paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) During any period, regulations issued under this section are in effect, no handler shall handle or process walnuts into manufactured items or products unless they meet the applicable requirements under this section as evidenced by certification acceptable to the Board.
(c) Regulations issued under this section may be amended, modified, suspended, or terminated whenever it is determined:
(1) That such action is warranted upon recommendation of the Board and approval by the Secretary, or other available information; or
(2) That regulations issued under this section no longer tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
During any period when regulations are in effect pursuant to § 984.50, substandard walnuts may be disposed of only for manufacture into oil, livestock feed, or such other uses as the Board determines to be noncompetitive with existing domestic and export markets for merchantable walnuts and with proper safeguards to prevent such walnuts from thereafter entering channels of trade in such markets. Each handler shall submit, in such form and at such intervals as the Board may determine, reports of his production and holdings of substandard walnuts and the disposition of all substandard walnuts to any other person, showing the quantity, lot, date, name and address of the person to whom delivered, the approved use and such other information pertaining thereto as the Board may specify.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
(i) At roadside stands and farmers' markets;
(ii) In quantities not exceeding an aggregate of 500 pounds of inshell walnuts or 200 pounds of shelled walnuts during any marketing year (at locations other than those specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section); and
(iii) If shipped by parcel post or express in quantities not exceeding 10 pounds of inshell walnuts or 4 pounds of shelled walnuts to any one consumer in any one calendar day.
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) If such excess is not retained in a reserve, as provided in paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, it shall be refunded to handlers from whom collected, and each handler's share of such excess funds shall be the amount of assessments he or she has paid in excess of his or her pro rata share of the actual expenses of the Board.
(2) Excess funds may be used temporarily by the Board to defray expenses of the subsequent marketing year provided each handler's share of such excess shall be made available to him or her by the Board within five months after the end of the year.
(3) The Board may carry over such excess into subsequent marketing years as a reserve: Provided, that funds already in reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses. In the event that funds exceed two marketing years' budgeted expenses, future assessments will be reduced to bring the reserves to an amount that is less than or equal to two marketing years' budgeted expenses. Such reserve funds may be used:
(i) To defray expenses, during any marketing year, prior to the time assessment income is sufficient to cover such expenses;
(ii) To cover deficits incurred during any year when assessment income is less than expenses;
(iii) To defray expenses incurred during any period when any or all provisions of this part are suspended; and
(iv) To meet any other such costs recommended by the Board and approved by the Secretary.
(e)
(f)
Each handler who handles walnuts, inshell or shelled, at any time during a marketing year shall submit to the Board in such form and at such intervals as the Board may prescribe, reports showing the quantity so handled and such other information pertinent thereto as the Board may specify.
For the purpose of verifying and checking reports filed by handlers or the operations of handlers, the Secretary and the Board through its duly authorized representatives shall have access to any premises where walnuts and walnut records are held. Such access shall be available at any time during reasonable business hours. Authorized representatives shall be permitted to inspect any walnuts held and any and all records of the handler with respect to matters within the purview of this part. Each handler shall maintain complete records on the receiving, holding, and disposition of both inshell and shelled walnuts. Each handler shall furnish all labor necessary to facilitate such inspections at no expense to the Board or the Secretary. Each handler shall store all walnuts held by him or her in such manner as to facilitate inspection and shall maintain adequate storage records, which will permit accurate identification of respective lots and of all such walnuts held or disposed of theretofore. The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish any methods and procedures needed to verify reports.
On and after September 1, 2023, an assessment rate shall be fixed at $0.0125 per inshell pound of California walnuts.
(a) Reports of walnuts shipped during a month shall be submitted to the Board on California Walnut Board (CWB) Form No. 6 not later than the 5th day of the following month. Such reports shall include all shipments during the preceding month and shall show for inshell and shelled walnuts: the quantity shipped; whether they were shipped into domestic or export channels; and for exports, the quantity by country of destination. If a handler makes no shipments during any month, he/she shall submit a report marked “None.” If a handler has completed his/her shipments for the season, he/she shall mark the report “Completed,” and he/she shall not be required to submit any additional CWB Form No. 6 reports during the remainder of that marketing year.
(b) Reports of walnuts purchased directly from growers by handlers who are manufacturers or retailers shall be submitted to the Board on CWB Form No. 6, not later than the 5th day of the month following the month in which the walnuts were purchased. Such reports shall show the quantity of walnuts purchased.
(c) Reports of walnuts on which handlers have made purchase commitments with buyers during the month, but which have not yet been shipped, shall be submitted to the Board on CWB Form No. 6, not later than the 5th day of the month following the month in which the walnuts were committed. Such reports shall show the quantity of walnuts committed in either inshell or shelled pounds. If the handler made no commitments during any month, he/she shall mark “None” in the “Purchase Commitments” section of CWB Form No. 6.
Each handler who receives walnuts from outside California or the United States shall file with the Board, on CWB Form No. 7, a report of the receipt of such walnuts. The report shall be filed as follows: On or before December 5 for such walnuts received during the period September 1 to November 30; on or before March 5 for such walnuts received during the period December 1 to February 28 (February 29 in a leap year); on or before June 5 for such walnuts received during the period March 1 to May 31; and on or before September 5 for such walnuts received during the period June 1 to August 31. The report shall include the quantity of such walnuts received, the country of origin for such walnuts, and whether such walnuts are inshell or shelled.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a new Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.249 (Revision 0), “Use of ARCON Methodology for Calculation of Accident-Related Offsite Atmospheric Dispersion Factors.” This new RG describes an approach for reactor applicants and licensees for determining atmospheric relative concentration (χ/Q) values in support of modeling onsite releases to offsite
Revision 0 to RG 1.249 is available on August 21, 2023.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0133 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Revision 0 to RG 1.249 and the regulatory analysis may be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML22024A241 and ML21165A007, respectively.
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Kevin Quinlan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-6809, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
For clarification, Revision 0 of RG 1.249 was issued for public comment with a temporary identification of draft Regulatory Guide (DG), DG-4030, to RG 4.28, titled, “Use of ARCON Methodology for Calculation of Accident-Related Offsite Atmospheric Dispersion Factors.” After further consideration of the applicability of this RG, the staff decided that it is more suitable to be listed under the RGs of Division 1, titled, “Power Reactors.” As a result, the RG number was changed to RG 1.249 using the same RG title, instead of being listed under Division 4, titled, “Environmental and Siting,” as RG 4.28. The content of the RG did not change due to it being issued under Division 1 instead of Division 4.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-4030 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21165A005), in the
This new RG provides guidance to industry for complying with and implementing the NRC requirements by endorsing the use of the ARCON computer code to calculate offsite dispersion values out to distances of 1,200 m (3937 ft) that could include the exclusion area boundary and/or low-population zone.
RG 1.194 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031530505) endorses the use of the ARCON96 computer code for calculating accident-related onsite (control room and technical support center) atmospheric dispersion values which are direct inputs to habitability dose assessments. In addition, RG 1.145 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12216A014) provides the present methodology incorporated into the PAVAN computer code, as reviewed by the staff using NUREG-0800 at
RG 1.249 will provide new guidance for applicants and licensees subject to part 50 of title 10 of the
As noted in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of RG 1.249, Revision 0, does not constitute backfitting as that term is defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18093B087); constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4; or affect issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52. As explained in RG 1.249, applicants and licensees are not required to comply with the positions set forth in this regulatory guide.
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.26 “Volcanic Hazards Assessment for Proposed Nuclear Power Reactor Sites,” to restore text and a Section heading inadvertently omitted from Section C, “Staff Regulatory Guidance,” of Revision 0. The restored text appeared in the draft guide released for public comment. In addition, there is a minor update of the Paperwork Reduction Act text in the RG. The changes do not represent substantive changes in the NRC staff's regulatory positions.
Revision 1 to RG 4.26 is available on August 21, 2023.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0076 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Jenise Thompson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-0381, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The NRC typically seeks public comment on a draft version of a RG by announcing its availability for comment in the
The NRC is issuing Revision 1 of RG 4.26 directly as a final RG because the changes between Revision 1 and Revision 0 are non-substantive. The NRC issued Revision 0 of RG 4.26 in June 2021 (86 FR 34057) to provide guidance for facilitating the NRC staff's review of volcanic hazards assessments performed by applicants to support the siting of new nuclear power reactors. Recently it was noted that there was an administrative error in omission of text and a subheading of the guidance in Section C “Staff Regulatory Guidance.” Also, in the discussion of Step 4: “Evaluate Eruption Potential and/or Hazard Potential,” two paragraphs and two bullet points discussing model support are missing as well as the subheading for the following section, Step 5: “Develop Risk Insights,” despite their inclusion in the draft guide released for public comment (ADAMS Accession No. ML20007D621) and a subsequent draft revised in light of public comments that was presented to NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for review in spring 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20022A214). In addition, there is an update of the contact information in Paperwork Reduction Act text in the RG.
As noted in the
Issuance of RG 4.26, Revision 1, does not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of the main landing gear (MLG) aft door not opening when using the alternate extension system. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the spring box assembly, repetitive inspections of the cam assembly and alternate release cable assembly, corrective actions if necessary, and a replacement of certain alternate release cable assemblies. In addition, this AD requires certain aircraft maintenance manuals tasks when installing the cam assembly or alternate release cable assembly. This AD also prohibits the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2023.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 25, 2023.
• For service information identified in this final rule, contact De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9, Canada; telephone North America (toll-free): 855-310-1013, Direct: 647-277-5820; email:
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the spring box assembly, repetitive inspections of the cam assembly and alternate release cable assembly, corrective actions if necessary, and a replacement of certain alternate release cable assemblies. In addition, the NPRM also proposed to require certain aircraft maintenance manuals tasks when installing the cam assembly or alternate release cable assembly. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible cam assembly, spring box assembly, and alternate release cable assembly failures. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in asymmetric main landing gear configuration at landing, and a runway excursion.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019. This service information specifies procedures for performing a general visual inspection of the cam assembly (part number (P/N) 48510-5) for discrepancies (such as the cam assembly does not return to its original rested position, or signs of an increased gap between the roller and the cam guide); a general visual inspection of the alternate release cable assembly (or uplock cable assembly) (P/N 48503-3) for discrepancies (such as a broken cable); a one-time general visual inspection for discrepancies (such as any bend on the plunger) of the left and right MLG spring box assembly (P/N 48504-1); and corrective actions. Corrective actions include replacing the cam assembly with a new cam assembly, replacing the alternate release cable assembly with a new alternate release cable assembly, and replacing
The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022, including Collins Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated July 18, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for replacing the left and right MLG alternate release cable assemblies, P/N 48503-3, with the redesigned alternate release cable assembly, P/N 48503-5.
The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Temporary Revision 32-603, dated December 1, 2022, which describes aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) TASK 32-34-16-400-804, “Installation of the Alternate Extension Cables-Center Fuselage to Nacelle.”
The FAA also reviewed AMM TASK 32-34-26-400-801, “Installation of the MLG Alternate-Extension Cam-Mechanism Assembly” of Subject 32-34-26, “Cam Mechanism Assembly-MLG Alternative Extension” in Chapter 32, “Landing Gear,” of the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 76, dated March 5, 2022. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required action. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 25, 2023.
None.
This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (type certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4633 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of the main landing gear (MLG) aft door not opening when using the alternate extension system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible cam assembly, spring box assembly, and alternate release cable assembly failures. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in asymmetric MLG configuration at landing, and a runway excursion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time general visual inspection for discrepancies on the left and right MLG spring box assemblies (part number (P/N) 48504-1), in accordance with Section 3.B., Part A, of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019. If any discrepancy is discovered in the spring box assembly, before further flight, replace with a new spring box assembly, in accordance with Section 3.B. Part B, of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019.
(1) Within 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the cam assemblies (P/N 48510-5) on the left and right MLG, in accordance with Section 3.B. Part A, of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first. If any discrepancy is discovered in the cam assembly, before further flight, replace with a new cam assembly, in accordance with Section 3.B. Part B, of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019.
(2) Within 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the alternate release cable assemblies (P/N 48503-3) on the left and right MLG, in accordance with Section 3.B., Part A, of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, replace the alternate release cable assembly with a redesigned alternate release cable assembly P/N 48503-5, in accordance with Section 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022, including Collins Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated July 18, 2022. Accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
Within 5,500 flight hours or 30 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right MLG alternate release cable assemblies, P/N 48503-3, with the redesigned alternate release cable assembly, P/N 48503-5, in accordance with Section 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022, including Collins Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated July 18, 2022.
As of the effective date of this AD, when installing an MLG alternate extension system cam assembly and when installing an alternate release cable assembly, the following aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) tasks must be used, as applicable:
(1) For the alternate release cable assembly: AMM TASK 32-34-16-400-804, “Installation of the Alternate Extension Cables-Center Fuselage to Nacelle” as specified in De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Temporary Revision 32-603, dated December 1, 2022.
(2) For the MLG alternate extension system cam assembly: AMM TASK 32-34-26-400-801, “Installation of the MLG Alternate-Extension Cam-Mechanism Assembly” of Subject 32-34-26, “Cam Mechanism Assembly-MLG Alternative Extension” in Chapter 32, “Landing Gear,” of the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 76, dated March 5, 2022.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an alternate release cable assembly P/N 48503-3.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-69, dated December 16, 2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found in the AD docket at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019.
(ii) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022, including Collins Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated July 18, 2022.
(iii) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Temporary Revision 32-603, dated December 1, 2022.
(iv) AMM TASK 32-34-26-400-801, “Installation of the MLG Alternate-Extension Cam-Mechanism Assembly,” of Subject 32-34-26, “Cam Mechanism Assembly-MLG Alternative Extension” in Chapter 32, “Landing Gear,” of the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 76, dated March 5, 2022.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9, Canada; telephone North America (toll-free): 855-310-1013, Direct: 647-277-5820; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report from the supplier of a manufacturing quality escape in which some sensing elements were manufactured with insufficient salt fill. This could result in an inability to detect hot bleed air leaks. This AD requires, depending on airplane serial number, reviewing the airplane maintenance records for affected bleed leak detection system sensing elements, testing the sensing elements, replacing those that fail, and witness marking those that pass, as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD also prohibits the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2023.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 25, 2023.
• For Transport Canada material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• For Kidde Aerospace & Defense service information incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Kidde Aerospace & Defense, 4200 Airport Drive NW, Building B, Wilson, NC 27896; telephone: 319-295-5000; website:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket at
Thomas Niczky, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7347; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require, depending on airplane serial number, reviewing the airplane maintenance records for affected bleed leak detection system sensing elements, testing the sensing elements, replacing those that fail, and witness marking those that pass, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Since the NPRM was issued, Transport Canada revised AD CF-2022-13 and issued Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1, dated April 18, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1) (also referred to as the MCAI). Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 clarifies the definition of the affected part. Also, Airbus Canada Limited Partnership issued updated Service Bulletins BD500-362002 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, and BD500-362003 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023. These updated service bulletins removed redundant steps and corrected that only failed sensing elements and not a failed loop needs to be replaced.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta requested that the FAA delay the final rule until a revised Transport Canada AD is issued. Delta stated the current definition of an “Affected Part” in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13 does not provide a clear and concise method for compliance for operators to comply with the proposed AD. Delta stated that it wants to review the new Transport Canada AD and submit comments on a new NPRM.
The FAA agrees that the definition for “Affected Part” should be revised for
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to specify that where paragraphs a. and b. of Part III. of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13 specify to “test the sensing elements,” replace that text with “test affected parts.” Delta stated that the safety concern is only applicable to an “Affected Part” as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13 and not all sensing elements on an airplane. Delta explained that as currently written, Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13 requires operators to test all sensing elements, regardless of if they are an “affected part” or not. Delta stated that specifying “affected part” will allow operators to initially inspect each sensing element, determine if it is an “affected part”, and test (apply corrective actions) only those affected parts; thereby minimizing labor hours.
The FAA agrees the language in paragraphs a. and b. of Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13 should be revised to specify the “affected part” as defined in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13. Transport Canada has updated paragraphs a. and b. of Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 to refer to the affected parts. As stated previously, this AD now refers to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1. Paragraphs a. and b. of Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 now narrow the scope to testing of only affected parts. Therefore, an exception to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 is not needed in this AD.
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to change the replacement parts. Delta stated that where Appendix A through Appendix J of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022; and Appendix A through Appendix C of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022, specify “remove and replace any failed loop,” replace with “remove and replace any failed sensing element.” Delta stated that, as written, the appendices specifies that if a sensing element fails, then the entire loop is to be removed and replaced under the Required for Compliance (RC) procedure. Delta stated Airbus Canada specified that more than one sensing element can be within a single loop and that only sensing elements that fail the test need to be replaced. Delta concluded that the recommended exception will provide more clarity on what parts need to be removed and replaced to address the safety concern.
The FAA agrees that the affected parts are sensing elements and if a sensing element fails, only that sensing element must be replaced as specified in paragraphs a. and b. of Part III, Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1. The FAA has added an exception in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD to state that where the appendixes of Issue 001 of the service information referenced in “First SB” and “Second SB” of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 specify steps to remove and replace any failed loop, this AD requires replacing only any failed sensing element. In addition, Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletins BD500-362002 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, and BD500-362003 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, removed the statements “remove and replace any failed loop” and now specify only replacing a failed sensing element. As defined in “First SB” and “Second SB” of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1, later revisions of the service information are allowed for compliance, which includes Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletins BD500-362002 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, and BD500-362003 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023.
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to exclude redundant steps for adding “witness marks.” Delta listed multiple steps for adding “witness marks” within the parts in the procedures of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022; and Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022. Delta stated those steps are redundant to a step for adding “witness marks” in the appendixes of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022; and Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022. Delta stated that following completion of an appendix, the associated part procedure is done. Delta stated both steps cannot be deviated from because both are within the RC procedure section of the service information. Delta stated that Airbus Canada confirmed that the marking of sensing elements only needs to be done once.
The FAA agrees that the steps for adding “witness marks” within the procedures parts in the Accomplishment Instructions are redundant with the steps in the appendices of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022; and Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022. The FAA agrees that redundant steps are not required to be performed. Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletins BD500-362002 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, and BD500-362003 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, removed the redundant marking steps from the appendices. The FAA has added an exception to paragraph (h)(6) of this AD to clarify that adding “witness marks” is only done once when using Issue 001 of the service information referenced in “First SB” and “Second SB” of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1. Paragraph (h)(6) of this AD also clarifies that replacing an affected part if a test is unsatisfactory is only done once, which addresses the following comment about additional redundant steps.
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to exclude redundant replacement steps. Delta listed multiple steps to remove the sensing element if the test is unsatisfactory and install a new sensing element within the procedures of the parts of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022; and Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022. Delta stated those steps are redundant to steps to “replace a failed sensing element” as well as steps to “replace a failed loop” (which
The FAA agrees that the steps to remove the sensing element if the test is unsatisfactory and install a new sensing element that are within the procedures of the parts of the Accomplishment Instructions are redundant with the steps in the appendices of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022; and Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022. The FAA agrees that redundant steps are not required to be performed. Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletins BD500-362002 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, and BD500-362003 Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023, removed the redundant replacement steps from the appendices. As stated previously, the FAA has added an exception to paragraph (h)(6) of this AD to clarify that replacing affected parts is only done once when using Issue 001 of the service information referenced in “First SB” and “Second SB” of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1.
The exception in paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD to the parts installation prohibition specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13 referred to “ACLP SB BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022” and “ACLP SB BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022” for the prohibited sensing elements. The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(4) of this AD to specify prohibited sensing elements are identified in either Issue 001 or Issue 002 of the service information,
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 specifies procedures for, depending on airplane serial number, reviewing the airplane maintenance records for affected bleed leak detection system sensing elements, testing the sensing elements, replacing those that fail, and witness marking those that pass. Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 also prohibits the installation of any affected parts unless it is a serviceable part.
Kidde Aerospace & Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-1, Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022, specifies affected continuous fire detector (CFD) part numbers and testing procedures.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 69 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 25, 2023.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1, dated April 18, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 36, Pneumatic.
This AD was prompted by a report from the supplier of overheat detection sensing elements that there was a manufacturing quality escape in which some sensing elements were manufactured with insufficient salt fill. The FAA is issuing this AD to address insufficient salt fill of the overheat detection sensing elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an inability to detect hot bleed air leaks, which can cause damage to surrounding structures and systems that could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 refers to April 11, 2022 (the effective date of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13, dated March 28, 2022), or to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 refers to hours air time, this AD requires using flight hours.
(3) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 defines “Affected part” and refers to part numbers in a certain service bulletin, for this AD, operators must use Kidde Aerospace & Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-1, Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022, to determine the part number.
(4) Where “Part I” of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 specifies the parts installation prohibition for certain airplanes, replace the text “associated with Part A through Part J of the first SB or Part A through Part C of the second SB” with “associated with Part A through Part J of ACLP SB BD500-362002 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022, or Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023; or Part A through Part C of ACLP SB BD500-362003 Issue 001, dated February 18, 2022, or Issue 002, dated July 26, 2023.”
(5) Where the appendixes of Issue 001 of the service information referenced in “First SB” and “Second SB” of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 specify steps to “remove and replace any failed loop,” this AD requires replacing only any failed sensing element as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1.
(6) Where the appendixes and the procedure sections of Issue 001 of the service information referenced in “First SB” and “Second SB” of Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1 specify redundant steps to remove and replace any failed loops or any failed sensing elements and steps to add “witness marks (dots),” this AD requires those steps be performed only once. Also, as stated in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD only the failed sensing element must be replaced and not a failed loop.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13, dated March 28, 2022.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Niczky, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1, dated April 18, 2023.
(ii) Kidde Aerospace & Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-1, Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022.
(3) For Transport Canada AD CF-2022-13R1, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) For Kidde Aerospace & Defense service information, contact Kidde Aerospace & Defense, 4200 Airport Drive NW, Building B, Wilson, NC 27896; telephone: 319-295-5000; website:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective August 21, 2023. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 21, 2023.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective August 21, 2023. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 21, 2023.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone: (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14, CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Correcting amendment.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is correcting a final rule,
Effective August 17, 2023, and applicable beginning August 11, 2023.
Logan Norton, Regulatory Policy Division,
This is a summary of the erratum, published in the
The regulatory text of 88 FR 54875 became enforceable as of August 11, 2023.
Exports.
Accordingly, 15 CFR part 738 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of changes to the Rental Assistance Demonstration.
The Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) provides the opportunity to test the conversion of assistance of public housing properties and other HUD-assisted properties to long-term, project-based Section 8 rental assistance. This document announces the posting of a supplement to the most current notice (Revised RAD Notice Revision 4, H-2019-09/PIH-2019-23 (HA)). As provided by the RAD Statute, this document addresses the requirement that RAD may proceed after publication of notice of its terms in the
The RAD Supplemental Notice 4B, H-2023-08/PIH-2023-19 (HA) other than those items listed as new statutory or regulatory waivers or alternative requirements specified in this document, is effective August 21, 2023.
The new statutory and regulatory waivers and alternative requirements are effective August 31, 2023.
Interested persons are invited to submit questions or comments electronically to
William A. Lavy, Director of Program Administration, Office of Recapitalization, Office of Multifamily Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 6230, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-2465. (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
Originally authorized by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 122-55, approved November 18, 2011) (2012 Appropriations Act) and later amended, RAD allows for the conversion of assistance of public housing properties, Rent Supplement (Rent Supp), Rental Assistance (RAP), Moderate Rehabilitation (Mod Rehab), Mod Rehab Single Room Occupancy (SRO), Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contract (202 PRAC), and Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Contract (811 PRAC) programs (collectively, “covered programs”) to long-term, renewable assistance under Section 8.
The following highlights key changes to RAD that are included in the RAD Supplemental Notice (the Notice):
1. RAD for PRAC Initial Contract Rent Setting. The Consolidated Appropriations Acts, 2022 and 2023, each provided $6 million to support preservation transactions of housing for the elderly originally developed with a Section 202 Capital Advance and assisted with a Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC). HUD is implementing this provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Acts, 2022 and 2023 in Section I of the Notice by allowing additional rent-setting flexibilities to promote and incentivize projects where the conversion supports long-term preservation by enhancing climate resiliency, energy and water efficiency, and the design of housing appropriate for the elderly to age-in-place. It further implements waiver authority provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts, 2022 and 2023 to ensure the continuation of resident services previously provided at Section 202 PRAC properties that are converting through RAD and to avoid reductions in rental revenue at such properties.
2. Resident Engagement. Section II of the Notice amends the Resident Engagement requirements for PHAs to ensure that the residents are better informed and engaged in the RAD conversion process and that HUD can adequately monitor resident engagement. The Notice enhances the descriptions of resident engagement that must be submitted with the RAD application and modifies the resident meeting requirements to provide for more frequent and meaningful updates to residents.
3. Energy Efficiency and Climate Resilience. Section III of the Notice amends the RAD Notice, Rev-4 to raise the minimum energy efficiency standards applicable to new construction activities by reference to updated energy codes incorporating higher, cost-effective standards and requires PHAs to participate in climate resilience planning.
4. Harmonizing Radon Policies in RAD Conversions. Section IV of the Notice amends the RAD Notice, Rev-4 to ensure that all projects converting assistance under RAD are evaluated for radon. RAD Notice, Rev-4 introduced requirements for radon testing for properties converting under RAD but exempted certain scenarios from the requirement. It also inadvertently omitted Mod Rehab conversions from the requirement. HUD's subsequent amendments to Chapter 9 of the MAP Guide further narrowed the exempted scenarios. Through the Notice, HUD is eliminating the remaining exemptions, subjecting all Converting Projects to radon testing requirements.
5. Treatment of Zero-HAP families. Section V of the Notice amends the treatment of families whose total tenant payment (TTP) exceeds the Gross Rent on the RAD HAP Contract including families present at the time of
6. Faircloth-to-RAD Developments. Section VI and Section II of the Notice make changes to the RAD Notice, Rev-4 in order to support PHAs that are developing public housing units to replace public housing units previously removed from the PHA's portfolio. PHAs can secure a conditional pre-completion approval to convert newly developed public housing units to a long-term Section 8 contract through RAD following completion of the public housing development process. The changes make it simpler for PHAs to reserve RAD conversion authority, allow PHAs to utilize HAP reserves in order to augment RAD rents for such units at conversion, and set forth alternative resident notification procedures that a PHA may employ.
7. Housing Quality Standards. Section VII of the Notice amends the RAD Notice, Rev-4 to clarify applicability of HQS during the work period for occupied units and adds a certification requirement regarding the condition of the unit prior to the execution of the HAP Contract.
8. RAD/Section 18 Blend Streamlining. Section VIII of the Notice extends additional waivers to non-RAD project-based vouchers (PBVs) at the Converted Project in order to facilitate uniform treatment of residents and units.
The RAD Statute provides that waivers and alternative requirements authorized under the First Component must be published by notice in the
HUD has previously published its waivers and alternative requirements for RAD on July 26, 2012 (77 FR 43850), July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39759), June 26, 2015 (80 FR 36830), January 19, 2017 (82 FR 6615), July 3, 2018 (83 FR 31169), and October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54630). This document only includes waivers and alternative requirements not previously published or that have changed from previous publications. Although waivers and alternative requirements authorized under the Second Component are not subject to a
The new waivers and alternative requirements are:
1. Initial Contract Rent Setting for converting Section 202 PRAC projects.
2. Treatment of Zero-HAP families.
3. Housing Quality Standards.
4. RAD/Section 18 Blend Streamlining.
a. PBV Percentage Limitation:
b. Owner Proposal Selection Procedures:
The RAD Supplemental Notice 4B (H-2023-08/PIH-2023-19 (HA)) can be found on RAD's website,
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been completed in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel; Department of Housing and Urban Development; 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the Finding by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard will establish and enforce a special local regulation for the Glass City Glowtacular. This special local regulation is necessary to safely control vessel movements in the vicinity of the paddle event, provide for the safety of the general boating public, and commercial shipping. During this enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
This special local regulation will be enforced from 7 p.m. through 11 p.m. on September 16, 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 MST1 Karl Dirksmeyer, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 392-0324, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency, for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because we must establish this special local regulation by September 16, 2023.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Glass City Glowtacular on September 16, 2023, will be a safety concern within all waters of the Maumee River from Middlegrounds Metro Park down river to the Glass City Metro Park for four hours. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters near the Middlegrounds and Glass City Metro Parks, Toledo, OH.
This rule establishes a special local regulation from 7:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on September 16, 2023. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: all U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River in Toledo, OH, between the Middleground Metro Park, and the Glass City Metro Park. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
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
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this regulated area which would impact a small designated area of Maumee River for a short duration, during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the area 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 Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This special local regulation lasts four hours that will prohibit entry of the waters of the Maumee River, between the Middlegrounds Metro Park and the Glass City Metro Park. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area shall contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of Lake Huron between St. Ignace, MI and Mackinaw Island, MI. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by aerial and water-borne activities during an emergency response exercise. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie.
This rule is effective from September 7, 2023, 7 a.m. through September 8, 2023, 6 p.m. local time.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT Rebecca Simpson, Sector Sault Sainte Marie Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-3223, 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 of the potential hazards that exist with respect to the exercise. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by September 7, 2023.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a Mackinaw County Emergency Exercise September 7, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within a box bound by the following four points: 45-53.5′ N 084-43.52′ W, 45-3.83′ N 084-44′ W, 45-53.09′ N 084-38.78′ W, 45-52.22′ N, 084-38.94′ W. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the exercise is happening.
This rule establishes a safety zone during daylight hours from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 7, 2023, and from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 8, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a box bound by the following four points: 45-53.5′ N 084-43.52′ W, 45-3.83′ N 084-44′ W, 45-53.09′ N 084-38.78′ W, 45-52.22′ N 084-38.94′ W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the exercise is happening. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). 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, duration, and time-of-day for each safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around all safety zones which will impact small designated areas within the COTP zone for short durations of time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 2 days, during daylight hours, that will prohibit entry within a box bound by the following four points: 45-53.5′ N 084-43.52′ W, 45-3.83′ N 084-44′ W, 45-53.09′ N 084-38.78′ W, 45-52.22′ N 084-38.94′ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 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 COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (906) 635-3233. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. The safety zone will be enforced during daylight hours, specifically from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 7th and 8th.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters on the St. Clair River in Algonac, MI. The safety zone is necessary and intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with fireworks displays created by the Youth for the Future organization. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9 through 10:30 p.m. September 16, 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 Tracy Girard, Waterways Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9564, 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 the event sponsor notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to publish an NPRM and immediate action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on the St. Clair River. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish a NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by September 16, 2023.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks displays will be a safety concern for anyone within a 280-yard radius of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on September 16, 2023. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair River within a 280-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located 42°39.038′ N, 082°31.67′ W, in Algonac, MI. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small, designated area of the St. Clair River for approximately one and a half hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
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.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1.5 hours that will prohibit entry within 280-yard radius of where the fireworks display will be conducted. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping 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)
(d)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
(2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. The COTP Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; technical correction.
EPA issued a final rule in the
This final rule correction is effective August 21, 2023.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0128, is available online at
Christina Scheltema, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-2272; email address:
The Agency included in the July 19, 2023, final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.
EPA issued a final rule in the
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making these corrections final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA inadvertently omitted instructions to the
No. For a detailed discussion concerning the statutory and executive order review refer to Unit V. of the July 19, 2023, final rule.
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, 40 CFR part 180 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The revision and additions read as follows.
(d) * * *
(1) Tolerances are established for indirect or inadvertent residues of the insecticide cyromazine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in table 1 to this paragraph (d)(1) when present therein as a result of the application of cyromazine to growing crops listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph (d)(1) is to be determined by measuring only cyromazine,
(2) Tolerances are established for indirect or inadvertent residues of the
The addition reads as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pyraclostrobin in or on stevia, dried leaves and stevia, fresh leaves and revises the tolerance for residues of pyraclostrobin in or on coffee, green bean. The Interregional Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective August 21, 2023. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 20, 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-2022-0235, is available at
Charles Smith, Director, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 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-2022-0235 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 October 20, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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-2022-0235, 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(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(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. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for pyraclostrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyraclostrobin follows.
In an effort to streamline its publications in the
EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for pyraclostrobin in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. In this rulemaking, EPA is incorporating previously published sections from the September 20, 2021, rulemaking (86 FR 52083) (FRL-8857-01-OCSPP) as described further below, as they remain unchanged.
EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposures from the new uses of pyraclostrobin on coffee and stevia. In conducting the acute dietary
The chronic dietary exposure assessment also uses the DEEM-FCID Version 4.02 software with the 2005-2010 NHANES/WWEIA data. The chronic dietary exposure assessment is refined and uses the same assumptions as the Unit III.C.1.ii in the September 20, 2021, rulemaking; specifically, anticipated residues based on average field trial residue levels for plant raw agricultural commodities or tolerance-level residues, PCT information where available, and experimentally determined processing factors where available. Anticipated residues for livestock commodities were also calculated and incorporated into the assessment.
Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the aPAD; they are 86% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old, the only population subgroup for which an acute toxic effect was identified. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 54% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years, the most highly exposed population subgroup.
EPA determined that it is inappropriate to combine the oral route of exposure with dermal and inhalation exposures because of dissimilar toxic response observed from exposures to pyraclostrobin via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes. Therefore, the short-term aggregate exposure assessment includes dietary (food and drinking water) and incidental oral hand to mouth exposure from high contact lawn activity on treated lawns for children 1 to less than 2 years old. The short-term aggregate MOE is 260 and is not of concern because it is above the Agency's level of concern of 100.
Pyraclostrobin is classified as “Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans” due to an absence of carcinogenicity in the available studies; therefore, EPA does not expect pyraclostrobin exposures to pose an aggregate cancer risk.
Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin residues. More detailed information on this action can be found in the Pyraclostrobin Human Health Risk Assessment in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0235.
For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method for various crops, see Unit IV.A of the September 20, 2021, rulemaking.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The U.S. tolerance for pyraclostrobin in or on coffee, green bean is harmonized with the Codex MRL at 0.3 ppm. There are no Codex MRLs for stevia.
One comment was received in response to the notice of filing, which opposed EPA establishing the requested tolerances and objected to the use of pesticides on crops. Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish tolerances when it determines that the tolerance is safe. Upon consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data as well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has determined that pyraclostrobin tolerances are safe. The commenter has provided no information indicating that a safety determination cannot be supported.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyraclostrobin, (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy] methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
Additionally, EPA is correcting the active ingredient name in the introductory paragraph from “pyradostrobin” to “pyraclostrobin”. EPA is also removing the Section 18 emergency exemption tolerance for residues of pyraclostrobin in or on endive, Belgium at 11.0 ppm as a housecleaning measure since that tolerance expired on December 31, 2013. These changes have no substantive effect and can be accomplished without further notice and comment.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. 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 (PRA) (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 the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 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, the Agency 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 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (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 chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy] methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl] phenylcarbamate), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyraclostrobin, in or on the commodity.
(b) [Reserved]
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS closes the General category fishery for large medium and giant (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, August 17, 2023, through August 31, 2023.
Becky Curtis,
Atlantic HMS fisheries, including BFT fisheries, are managed under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited on or after the effective date and time of a closure notice for that category until the opening of the relevant subsequent quota period or until such date as specified.
As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area). The current baseline quota for the General category is 710.7 mt. The General category baseline quota is suballocated to different time periods. Relevant to this action, the baseline subquota for the June through August time period is 355.4 mt.
To date, reported landings for the General category June through August time period total approximately 344 mt. Based on these landings, NMFS has determined that the June through August time period subquota of 355.4 mt is projected to be reached and exceeded shortly. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant (
On May 25, 2023 (88 FR 33839), NMFS published a final rule implementing RFDs every Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday from July 1 through November 30, 2023. Since the fishery will be closed for the remainder of the June through August time period, NMFS has decided to waive the previously-scheduled RFDs for the remainder of that time period. Previously-scheduled RFDs will resume on September 1, 2023.
With the RFDs waived during the closure, consistent with § 635.23(a)(4), fishermen aboard General category permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels may tag and release BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
After the fishery reopens on September 1, depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity to provide comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing for prior notice and an opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on landings information, the available time period subquota is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings exceeding the June through August time period subquota. Taking this action does not raise conservation or management concerns. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.
For all of the above reasons, the AA also finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear, trawl catcher vessels, and catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line gear to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to allow the 2023 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective August 18, 2023, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2023.
Krista Milani, 907-581-2062.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 748 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (88 FR 14926, March 10, 2023), correction (88 FR 18258, March 28, 2023), and reallocation (88 FR 18443, March 29, 2023).
The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI is 26,807 mt as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (88 FR 14926, March 10, 2023) and correction (88 FR 18258, March 28, 2023).
The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI is 241 mt as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (88 FR 14926, March 10, 2023) and correction (88 FR 18258, March 28, 2023).
The 2023 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 3,360 mt as established by final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (88 FR 14926, March 10, 2023), correction (88 FR 18258, March 28, 2023), and reallocation (88 FR 18443, March 29, 2023).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 650 mt of the 2023 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(C), NMFS apportions 650 mt of Pacific cod from the jig vessels to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. Also, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A), NMFS reallocates 500 mt from trawl catcher vessels, and 230 mt from the catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.
The harvest specifications for 2023 Pacific cod included in final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (88 FR 14926, March 10, 2023), correction (88 FR 18258, March 28, 2023), and reallocation (88 FR 18443, March 29, 2023) is revised as follows: 98 mt to vessels using jig gear, 26,307 mt to trawl catcher vessels, 11 mt to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear, and 4,740 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 15, 2023.
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
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting the preamble of a proposed rule that was published in the
The correction takes effect on August 21, 2023.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0289 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tyler Hammock, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-1381, email:
The NRC is announcing the following correction to proposed rule FR Doc. 2023-16686, published at 88 FR 53384 on August 8, 2023. On page 53387, in the second column, the last sentence of the first full paragraph is corrected to read, “Therefore, the NRC is proposing a condition to prohibit the use of Subpart 2.19 in NQA-1-2017, NQA-1-2019, and NQA-1-2022.”
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) seeks public comment on proposed amendments to the Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products (“Amplifier Rule” or “Rule”). The proposed amendments modify the previous proposal by updating a required test condition (total harmonic distortion), improving differentiation between power output disclosures that comply with the Rule's testing methods and those that do not, and modernizing as well as clarifying Rule language considering the foregoing modifications. Additionally, the proposed amendments now formalize prior Commission guidance on applying the Rule to multichannel amplifiers.
Written comments must be received on or before October 20, 2023. Parties interested in an opportunity to present views orally should submit a request to do so as explained below, and such requests must be received on or before October 20, 2023.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Hong Park, Attorney, (202) 326-2158,
The Commission promulgated the Amplifier Rule in 1974 to address sellers' failure to provide essential pre-purchase information regarding the performance of home entertainment amplifiers.
Under the Rule, sellers making certain power claims (
Pursuant to its ongoing regulatory review schedule, on December 18, 2020, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) seeking comment on the Amplifier Rule. 85 FR 82391 (Dec. 18, 2020). Specifically, the ANPR sought comments regarding possible Rule improvements, the continuing need for the Rule, the Rule's costs and benefits, as well as whether, and how, technological or economic changes have affected the Rule.
In response, the Commission received 530 unique comments, including from amplifier and speaker manufacturers, amplifier sellers and purchasers, and engineers or journalists in the audio field.
Although commenters overwhelmingly supported the Rule, some recommended amendments. For example, many commenters urged the Commission to require uniform power band, load impedance, and THD limits to prevent manipulation of these three test conditions.
Consistent with these comments, Commission staff found this manipulation ubiquitous in the marketplace. Specifically, staff found dozens of examples of the same equipment advertised with significantly different power output claims (
Based on the comments and staff's review, the Commission found requiring disclosure of test conditions is unlikely to prevent deceptive power output claims. Test conditions are highly technical and require complex calculations to convert claims into apples-to-apples power output comparisons. Thus, the average consumer is unlikely to understand or use the disclosed test conditions to avoid deception.
To address widespread misleading power output claims, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”), proposing an amendment to the Amplifier Rule to standardize the three test conditions.
The Commission received nine unique comments in response to the NPRM.
Only one commenter opposed the Commission's proposal in its entirety. The Consumer Technology Association (“CTA”) stated the Commission's proposal is unnecessary for component audio devices because manufacturers “generally already use [the Commission's proposed] parameters to test their devices.”
After reviewing these comments, the Commission reaffirms its proposed approach of standardizing power output test conditions governing impedance, power band, and distortion. The Commission proposed standardizing these conditions based on the vast majority of comments,
Based on the comments, however, the Commission modifies its NPRM proposal in three ways. First, it proposes replacing the Rule's reference to “total harmonic distortion” with “total harmonic distortion plus noise” (“THD+N”).
Second, the Commission proposes raising the THD+N limit to 1.0% to address commenters' concerns that a significant number of amplifiers on the market cannot qualify for any power output claim under the NPRM proposal's 0.1% limit.
Third, the Commission proposes requiring sellers to use specific language to clearly distinguish power output disclosures under § 432.2 from Optional Disclosures under § 432.4. By standardizing the test conditions for power output claims under § 432.2, the Commission anticipates more sellers would also use Optional Disclosures to distinguish specific features of their products. While such claims can be useful to consumers seeking particular audio qualities, they raise the specter of confusion. To address this issue, the Commission proposes to amend both § 432.2 and § 432.4 to require sellers to designate disclosures that meet the FTC's standard with the words “FTC Power Output Rating,” and those that do not (
Additionally, the Commission proposes making four non-substantive changes to update and clarify the language of the Rule. First, the Commission proposes eliminating language in § 432.4 that currently incorporates § 432.2's requirement to disclose the test conditions.
Second, the Commission proposes to consolidate all provisions that standardize test conditions into a single section. Doing so should improve the Rule's useability. Currently, the Rule has two sections that contain standard test conditions. Section 432.3 entitled “Standard Test Conditions” contains most of the Rule's test condition requirements; however, the requirement to test using “minimum sine wave continuous average power output, in watts, per channel . . .” appears in § 432.2(a). Consolidating these requirements into § 432.3 should make the requirements easier to find.
Third, the Commission proposes modifying § 432.3(e) to clarify that amplifiers must meet the standard for impedance, power band, and THD+N at all levels from 250mW to the disclosed level. Retaining this requirement from the current rule
Fourth, the Commission proposes updates to § 432.4's prohibition against using an “asterisk” to make disclosures required under the Rule. The new proposal updates this language to similarly prohibit the use of footnotes and other notations typically used to obscure disclosures in advertising.
Finally, the Commission proposes formalizing its guidance regarding how channels in a multichannel amplifier must be driven when measuring power output under the FTC standard. The FTC standard requires all “associated channels” to be fully driven when measuring power output of the amplifier.
The Commission seeks comments on all aspects of the proposed requirements, including the likely effectiveness of the proposed Rule amendments in helping the Commission combat unfair or deceptive practices in the marketing of amplifiers utilized in home entertainment equipment. In particular, the Commission seeks comments on each of the modifications to its NPRM proposal. It also seeks comments on other approaches to addressing unfair and deceptive practices, such as the publication of additional consumer and business
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 20, 2023. Include “Amplifier Rule Review; Project No. P974222” on your comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Amplifier Rule Review; Project No. P974222” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex A), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website,
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website to read this publication and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 20, 2023. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
The Commission finds that using expedited procedures in this rulemaking will serve the public interest. Expedited procedures will support the Commission's goals of clarifying and updating existing regulations without undue expenditure of resources, while ensuring that the public has an opportunity to submit data, views, and arguments on whether the Commission should amend the Rule. Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, the Commission will use the following procedures: (1) publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposals to amend the Rule; (3) holding an informal hearing, if requested by interested parties; and (4) announcing final Commission action in a document published in the
The Commission, in its discretion, has not chosen to schedule an informal hearing and has not made any initial designations of disputed issues of material fact necessary to be resolved at an informal hearing. Interested persons who wish to make an oral submission at an informal hearing must file a comment in response to this publication and submit a statement identifying their interests in the proceeding and describing any proposals regarding the designation of disputed issues of material fact to be resolved at the informal hearing, on or before October 20, 2023. 16 CFR 1.11. Such requests, and any other motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding, must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
Under Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b-3, the Commission must issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a rule if the Commission: (1) estimates that the amendment will have an annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more; (2) estimates that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities or upon consumers. The Commission has preliminarily determined that the proposed amendments to the Rule will not have such effects on the national economy, on the cost of sound amplification equipment, or on covered businesses or consumers. In developing these proposals, the Commission has sought to minimize prescriptive requirements and provide flexibility to sellers in meeting the Rule's objectives. The Commission, however, requests comment on the economic effects of the proposed amendments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that the Commission conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the proposed amendment on small entities. The purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that an agency considers potential impacts on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small entities. The RFA requires that the Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) with a proposed rule and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) with a final rule, if any, unless the Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission believes that the proposed amendment would not have a
The Commission proposes amending the Rule to standardize testing parameters to assist consumers in understanding power output disclosures for amplifiers and to eliminate claims regarding power output that are likely to deceive consumers.
The Commission promulgated the Rule pursuant to Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a. The proposed amendment would standardize testing parameters for amplifiers to prevent deceptive claims regarding power output and assist consumers in understanding power output disclosures.
The Rule covers manufacturers and importers of power amplification equipment for home use. Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration, audio and video equipment manufacturers qualify as small businesses if they have 750 or fewer employees.
The Commission is proposing amendments designed to simplify the Rule and provide clearer amplifier power output measurements for consumers to use to compare products. While the amendments modify the Rule's testing requirements, FTC staff does not anticipate that these changes will result in higher costs for covered entities because manufacturers already test power output for their amplifiers; in many cases under the conditions specified by the proposed amendments.
The Commission has not identified any other Federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed amendment.
The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives because the proposed amendment would not impose any new requirements or compliance costs.
The current Rule contains various provisions that constitute information collection requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision within the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). OMB has approved the Rule's existing information collection requirements through April 30, 2024 (OMB Control No. 3084-0105). As described above, the Commission is proposing amendments to simplify power output measurements by standardizing test parameters. The amendments do not change the frequency of the testing or disclosure requirements specified under the Rule. Accordingly, FTC staff does not anticipate this change will result in additional burden hours or higher costs for manufacturers who already test power output for their amplifiers, in many cases testing amplifiers under the conditions specified by the proposed amendments. Therefore, the amendments do not require further OMB clearance.
Pursuant to FTC Rule 1.18(c)(1), the Commission has determined that communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications shall be placed on the rulemaking record if the communication is received before the end of the comment period. They shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received later. Unless the outside party making an oral communication is a member of Congress, such communications are permitted only if advance notice is published in the Weekly Calendar and Notice of “Sunshine” Meetings.
Amplifiers, Home entertainment products, Trade practices.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission proposes to amend part 432 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
38 Stat. 717, as amended; (15 U.S.C. 41-58).
Whenever any direct or indirect representation is made of the power output, power band or power frequency response, or distortion characteristics of sound power amplification equipment, the manufacturer's rated power output shall be disclosed subject to the following conditions:
(a) The rated power output is measured in compliance with the standard test conditions in § 432.3;
(b) The rated power output is disclosed clearly, conspicuously, and more prominently than any other representations or disclosures permitted under this part;
(c) The disclosure of the rated power output is clearly and conspicuously labeled “FTC Power Output Rating”; and
(d) The disclosures or representations required under this section shall not be made by a footnote, asterisk, or similar notation.
(e) Any power level from 250 mW to the rated power shall be obtainable at all
(g) Rated power shall be minimum sine wave continuous average power output, in watts, per channel (if the equipment is designed to amplify two or more channels simultaneously), measured with all associated channels fully driven to rated per channel power.
(h) Associated channels for multichannel amplifiers shall include, at a minimum, the left front and right front channels used for reproducing stereo programming.
Other operating characteristics and technical specifications not required in § 432.2 of this part may be disclosed.
(a) Any other power output is rated by the manufacturer, expressed in minimum watts per channel, and clearly and conspicuously labeled “This rating does not meet the FTC standard” without the use of a footnote, asterisk, or similar notation to make the representation;
(b) All disclosures or representations made under this section are less conspicuously, and prominently made than any rated power output disclosure required in § 432.2. Any disclosure or representation bold faced or more than two-thirds the height of any rated power output disclosure required in § 432.2 is not less prominent; and
(c) The rating and testing methods or standards used in determining such representations are well known and generally recognized by the industry at the time the representations or disclosures are made, are neither intended nor likely to deceive or confuse consumers, and are not otherwise likely to frustrate the purpose of this part.
By direction of the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Clean Air Act (CAA) plan and two state rules submitted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) on July 25, 2022. This plan was submitted to fulfill the state's obligations under the CAA to implement and enforce the requirements of the Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. This plan includes an inventory of affected sources and explains how the state rules fulfill the regulatory requirements needed for EPA to approve the plan. In addition, the EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by MoDNR for the purpose of revising the Missouri rule entitled “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” to incorporate by reference Emission Guidelines (EG) for MSW landfills. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision based on EPA's finding that the rule is as stringent as the rule it replaces and fulfills the requirements of the CAA for the protection of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in St. Louis.
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2023.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0199 to
Allyson Prue, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting and Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7277; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0199, at
EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan for Existing MSW Landfills (Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan) and two state rules accompanying the plan pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Missouri state rule 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.310 “Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers all areas of Missouri except St. Louis) and 10 CSR 10-5.490 “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers the St. Louis area) provide the enforceable portion of Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan. The state rules incorporate by reference the federal plan located at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO as the underlying rule which implements and enforces the applicable provisions under the 2016 MSW landfill EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.
As part of this action, EPA is also proposing to approve the revision to 10 CSR 10-5.490, which implements the 2016 MSW landfill EG at more stringent thresholds in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, into Missouri's SIP. EPA's proposed approval of 10 CSR 10-5.490 is in accordance with section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51.
EPA's detailed rationale and discussion concerning Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan, including the revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.310 and 10 CSR 10-5.490 can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the docket for this rulemaking.
Section 111 of the CAA, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” directs the EPA to establish emission standards for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(b) directs EPA to publish and periodically revise a list of categories of stationary sources which cause or significantly contribute to air pollution, and to establish NSPS within these categories. Section 111(b)(1)(B) applies to new sources.
When NSPS are promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and EPA regulations require that the EPA publish an Emission Guideline (EG) to regulate the same pollutants from existing facilities. Section 111(d) addresses the process by which the EPA and states regulate standards of performance for existing sources belonging to those categories established in section 111(b). While NSPS are directly applicable to new sources, EGs for existing sources (designated facilities) are intended for states to use to develop a state plan to submit to the EPA.
EPA established requirements for state plan submittals in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. State submittals under CAA section 111(d) must be consistent with the relevant emission guidelines, in this instance 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. If the state plan is complete and approvable with reference to these requirements, EPA notifies the public, promulgates the plan pursuant to 40 CFR part 62, and delegates implementation and enforcement of the standards and requirements of the emission guidelines to the state under the terms of the state plan as published in the CFR. Once approved by the EPA, the state plan becomes federally enforceable. If a State does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a Federal plan.
The MSW landfills NSPS for new landfills and EG for existing landfills were first promulgated by the EPA on March 12, 1996, in 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 FR 9905). We first approved Missouri's section 111(d) plan for MSW landfills on April 24, 1998 (63 FR 20320). On August 29, 2016, EPA finalized revised Standards of Performance for new MSW landfills and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing MSW Landfills (2016 MSW Landfills EG) in 40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 FR 59331 and 81 FR 59275). The 2016 MSW Landfills EG revision updates the control requirements and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for existing MSW landfill sources.
On May 21, 2021, EPA finalized a federal plan to implement the 2016 MSW Landfills EG where state plans were not in effect (86 FR 27756). On July 25, 2022, MoDNR submitted to EPA a formal section 111(d) plan and two state rules for existing MSW landfills. These rules are 10 CSR 10-6.310 “Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers all areas of Missouri except St. Louis) and 10 CSR 10-5.490 “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers the St. Louis area). The state rules incorporate by reference the federal plan located at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO to use as the underlying rule which implements and enforces the applicable provisions under the 2016 MSW landfill EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.
For the reasons discussed below, EPA proposes to find that Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan meets the relevant requirements of the CAA section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.
The St. Louis area was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 6, 1991, the EPA promulgated a regulation which classified the St. Louis area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area (56 FR 56694). The nonattainment area consisted of Madison, Monroe, and St. Claire counties in Illinois; and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis counties and St. Louis City in Missouri. The St. Louis area is currently designated nonattainment for the 8-hour (2015) ozone standard (83 FR 25776
Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that each state in which all or part of a moderate ozone nonattainment area is located submit a SIP revision providing for a 15 percent reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds. These plans are commonly referred to as Rate of Progress Plans (ROPP).
EPA approved Missouri's 15 percent ROPP on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31485). Missouri's 15 percent ROPP included state rule 10 CSR 10-5.490, “Control of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” that required the use of gas collection systems to reduce VOC emissions by 98% at six municipal solid waste landfills in the St. Louis area. The rule has been subsequently revised to maintain consistency with federal requirements, with the most recent
Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-5.490 to implement the 2016 MSW landfill EG at more stringent thresholds in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area and submitted the rule to EPA for approval as part of Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan and for approval as a revision to Missouri's SIP in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. For the reasons discussed below, EPA proposes to find that Missouri's submission meets the applicable requirements of section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51.
The EPA has reviewed Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan in the context of the plan completeness and approvability requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and part 62, subpart A. EPA's detailed rationale and discussion concerning Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan can be found in the EPA TSD located in the docket for this rulemaking. As detailed in the TSD, the state followed all applicable administrative procedures in proposing and adopting these rule and plan actions in accordance with 40 CFR parts 60, subpart B, §§ 60.23 through 60.26.
Included within Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan are revisions to 10 CSR 10-5.490 “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”; and 10 CSR 10-6.310 “Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”. These state rules incorporate by reference the new federal emissions thresholds and compliance schedules (40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO) for MSW landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987, and commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification before July 17, 2014.
Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan further describes how each requirement of the federal regulations is met by the state plan and rules. One element of this plan is the required inventory of affected landfills in the state. This inventory is contained in Table 1 of the state's submission which is included in the docket for this action. The state also met the public notice requirements for the plan and rules as demonstrated in Chapter 11 of the state's submittal. Table 2 of the state plan includes the compliance schedule for existing MSW landfills which is identical to the federal plan.
As required by 40 CFR 60.24, Missouri identified 10 CSR 10-5.490 and 10 CSR 10-6.310 as the enforceable state mechanisms that implement the MSW EGs. The state rules apply to each MSW landfill that has accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional design capacity available for future waste deposition, and that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before July 17, 2014. The state rules reference the appropriate section of 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO for each relevant requirement such as compliance times, test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. The provisions of 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. EPA finds this method of directly referencing federal regulations for each requirement sufficient to ensure the accurate version of requirements is referenced for affected facilities.
EPA continues to retain the following authorities that are not delegable to state agencies as described in 40 CFR 62.16710(b): Approval of alternative methods to determine the site-specific nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k); Alternative emission standards; Major alternatives to test methods (Major alternatives to test methods or to monitoring are modifications made to a federally enforceable test method or to a Federal monitoring requirement that may involve the use of unproven technology or modified procedures or an entirely new method); and waivers of recordkeeping. If a design plan includes alternative requests under 40 CFR 62.16710(b), MoDNR must forward the design plan to EPA for review and approval prior to its action on the design plan.
State rule 10 CSR 10-5.490 applies to the St. Louis area, consisting of St. Louis City and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties. The requirements contained in state rule 10 CSR 10-5.490 are identical to 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO except that the state rule implements a smaller landfill size limit and a lower emission cutoff limit that triggers requirements for a landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS). State rule 10 CSR 10-6.310 applies statewide to affected facilities. Landfills in the St. Louis area covered by 10 CSR 10-5.490 are exempt from this statewide rule. The requirements in the state rule are identical to 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO.
The Missouri submittal package includes all materials necessary to be deemed administratively and technically complete according to the criteria of 40 CFR 60.27. Missouri notified the public on December 27, 2021 concerning the proposed 111(d) plan and held a public hearing on January 27, 2022. The state's public comment period opened on December 27, 2021 and closed on February 3, 2022.
Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-5.490 to implement the 2016 MSW landfill EG at more stringent thresholds in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. The emission standards and compliance schedules from 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO are incorporated by reference into 10 CSR 10-5.490. The requirements that apply to existing MSW landfills with design capacities equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m
The lower design capacity thresholds and emission thresholds in the revision to 10 CSR 10-5.490 are identical to the design capacity thresholds and emission thresholds previously approved into the SIP by EPA and as part of Missouri's 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan. Missouri's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO imposes more stringent requirements on existing landfills in the St. Louis area than those imposed on landfills under the previously SIP-approved version of 10 CSR 10-5.490. As such, EPA proposes to find that the revisions to 10 CSR 10-5.490 do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and are therefore consistent with the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from December 27, 2021 to February 3, 2022 and held a public hearing on January 27, 2022. The State received one comment on 10 CSR 10-5.490 concerning incorporation by reference of federal requirements and modified the rule in response.
As explained above and in more detail in the TSD, which is part of this
The EPA is proposing to determine that Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan and associated state rules satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf.
The EPA is proposing to approve the Missouri section 111(d) plan and the two state rules for MSW landfills pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart AA, to reflect this action. The EPA's final approval of Missouri's section 111(d) plan will result in the replacement of the federal plan currently in place in the State of Missouri with the state plan being proposed for approval. The state plan does not extend any reporting or compliance deadlines stipulated in the current federal plan.
The EPA is also proposing to approve the July 30, 2022 state effective version of 10 CSR 10-5.490, which incorporates requirements established in EPA's updated Emission Guidelines, into the Missouri SIP replacing the prior SIP-approved version of the state rule. EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 52, subpart AA, to reflect this action.
We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Missouri state rules 10 CSR 10-5.490 and 10 CSR 10-6.310, effective July 30, 2022, which regulate municipal solid waste landfills, as discussed in detail in Section V. of this preamble, into 40 CFR part 62. EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference Missouri state rule 10 CSR 10-5.490, state effective July 30, 2022, which regulates municipal solid waste landfills in the St. Louis area, as discussed in detail in Section VI. of this preamble, into 40 CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through the docket for this action, EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0199, at
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subparts A and OOO. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions and SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices provided that they meet the minimum criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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); and
• 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 Clean Air Act;
In addition, the SIP and the CAA section 111(d) submission is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
MoDNR did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its 111(d) plan and SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 52 and 62 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) Identification of plan. Missouri plan for control of landfill gas emissions from existing municipal solid waste landfills and associated state regulations submitted on January 26, 1998, with amendments on September 8, 2000, February 9, 2012, and July 25, 2022. The plan includes the regulatory provisions cited in paragraph (d) of this section, which EPA incorporates by reference.
(b) Identification of sources. The plan applies to all existing municipal solid waste landfills for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced before May 30, 1991, that accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987, or that have additional capacity available for future waste deposition, and have design capacities greater than 2.5 million megagrams and nonmethane organic emissions greater than 50 megagrams per year, as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.
(c) Effective date. The effective date of the plan for municipal solid waste landfills is June 23, 1998. The amendments are effective January 16, 2001, May 30, 2012, and [date 30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the
(d) Incorporation by reference. (1) The material incorporated by reference in this section was approved by the Director of the Federal Register Office in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material may be inspected or obtained from the EPA Region 7 office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, 913-551-7003, or from the source in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Copies may be inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
(2) State of Missouri, 600 West Main Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101, 573-751-4015.
(i) 10 CSR 10-5.490, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, effective July 30, 2022.
(ii) 10 CSR 10-6.310, Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, effective July 30, 2022.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 20, 2023 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision of currently approved information collection associated with the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). The revision will include new forms related to ECP that will accompany new software to be implemented fiscal year 2024. The existing forms for prior ECP contracts will remain in use until contracts executed prior to fiscal year 2024 are closed.
We will consider comments that we receive by October 20, 2023.
We invite you to submit comments on this Notice. You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID: FSA-2023-0016, by any of the following methods:
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Shanita Landon.
For specific questions related to collection activities, Shanita London, (202) 578-9928 (work mobile); email:
(1) Effectively administer the regulations under ECP, which are set forth at 7 CFR part 701, so as to provide funding and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to restore farmland
(2) Effectively administer the regulations for BCAP, which are set forth at 7 CFR part 1450, so as to provide financial assistance to owners and operators of agricultural and non-industrial private forest land who wish to establish, produce, and deliver biomass feedstocks.
This information is collected in support of, respectively, sections 401-407 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-334), as amended, and section 9011 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171), as amended.
Activity related to BCAP did not change since the last Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submission due to the lack of BCAP funding. Activity related to ECP requests, approvals, and payments has increased due to major storm systems that caused catastrophic damage across the nation, from 2022-2023. Hurricane Fiona and Ian occurred in 2022. Multiple wildfires in 2022 and flood events in 2023 all contributed to the increase in activity. The new Cost-Share Request form for ECP is included in this request. The number of responses increased to 560,000 while the burden hours increased by 18,497 to cover the new Cost-Share Request form. The number of respondents remains 140,000 in the request.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual of responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, ability and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information.
All responses to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 or (844) 433-2774 (toll-free nationwide). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Millipore Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Jaffrey, New Hampshire within Subzone 81D. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 15, 2023.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material/component and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products are beverage filters and purifiers (duty rate is duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status material/component is plastic filtration membranes (duty rate is 6.5%). The request indicates that the material/component is subject to duties under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
For these final results, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) continues to find that GreenFirst Forest Products (QC) Inc. (GreenFirst QC) is the successor in interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada G.P. (RYAM).
Applicable August 21, 2023.
Zachary Shaykin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2638.
On May 22, 2023, Commerce published the preliminary results
The merchandise covered by the
Subject merchandise might be entered under the following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in Chapter 44: 4415.20.40.00; 4415.20.80.00; 4418.99.9105; 4418.99.9120; 4418.99.9140; 4418.99.9195; 4421.99.70.40; and 4421.99.9880.
Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
All issues raised by the parties in the case brief and letters in lieu of case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Upon review of the comments received,
As a result of this determination, Commerce finds that entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by GreenFirst QC should enter the United States at the cash deposit rate assigned to RYAM in the most recently completed administrative review of the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b), and 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on utility scale wind towers from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Applicable August 21, 2023.
Charles Doss, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
On February 2, 2023, Commerce published in the
On April 11, 2023, Commerce published in the
On May 18, 2023, the petitioner filed comments that available information indicated that there may have, in fact, been entries of subject merchandise that were not correctly classified upon entry.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a CVD order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
Information to be collected includes:
Basic customer contact information, details on who they would like to meet with and when/where, as well as CHIPS-related topics they would like to discuss. The data requested is limited to the information necessary to efficiently schedule these engagements and provide the customer with the desired information during these engagements.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
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 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ecosystem Advisory Subpanel (EAS) will hold an online meeting, which is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Wednesday, September 6, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Pacific time.
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 Pacific Council's website (see
Kit Dahl, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
At its online meeting the EAS will discuss the outcomes of the September 5 Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup online meeting (visit the Pacific Council website for details), receive an update on Marine Planning Committee recommendations, and prepare for their scheduled September 9 in-person meeting in Spokane, WA.
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 of public online meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a webinar meeting of the Salmon Technical Team (STT) to discuss items on the Pacific Council's September meeting agenda as detailed in the Supplementary Information section below. This meeting is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Wednesday, September 6, 2023, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, or until business for the day concludes.
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 Pacific Council's website (see
Robin Ehlke, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2410.
The primary purpose of the webinar meeting is to prepare for the Pacific Council's September 2023 meeting agenda items, including, but not limited to, such topics as the annual salmon methodology review, amendments to the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan, and other items of interest on the Pacific Council agenda. The STT may also discuss future STT meetings and other salmon-related topics of pertinence.
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 of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) on September 7, 2023. See
The SSC meeting will be held via webinar from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. EDT on September 7, 2023.
The meeting will be held via webinar.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer,
The meeting is open to the public via webinar as it occurs. Webinar registration is required. Information regarding webinar registration will be posted to the Council's website at:
The SSC meeting agenda includes a review of the Red Grouper operational assessment model and configurations, the draft Climate Governance Policy developed by NMFS, and discussing other business as needed. The SSC will provide guidance to staff and make recommendations for Council consideration.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Committee (EBFM) and Plan Development Team (PDT) to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 5, 2023, at 10 a.m.
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The EBFM Committee and PDT will meet to receive a summary presentation on the final Prototype Management Strategy Evaluation (pMSE) report with example scenarios. They will also discuss how the pMSE results and examples can be used to engage stakeholders during deep-dive workshops (to be scheduled in early 2024). The Committee and PDT will develop 2024 management priority recommendations, possibly including initial development of a full management strategy evaluation with public engagement. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.
The meeting is scheduled for September 11, 2023 from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). This time and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. For the latest agenda please refer to the SAB website:
This is a virtual meeting. The webinar registration links for the meeting may be found on the website at
Casey Stewart, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11360, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 240-381-0833; Email:
The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of application for ten permit renewals, one permit modification, and eight new permits.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received 18 scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, rockfish, and eulachon. NMFS has also received one permit application to enhance the propagation and survival of one listed salmonid species (Snake River steelhead). The proposed activities in all permits are intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts.
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to
Rob Clapp, Portland, OR, 541-231-2314,
The following ESA-listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Chum salmon (
Coho salmon (
Sockeye salmon (
Eulachon (
Green sturgeon (
Rockfish (
bocaccio (
Scientific research permits and permits to enhance propagation or survival are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The National Park Service (NPS) is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult CC Chinook salmon, CCC coho salmon, and CCC steelhead as part of a long-term monitoring program within the NPS's San Francisco Bay area network. The research includes seven studies within, or proximate to, NPS lands in: Lagunitas Creek, Olema Creek, Pine Gulch, Redwood Creek, and Rodeo Creek, and Easkoot Creek in Marin County; West Union and San Vicente Creeks in San Mateo County; Alhambra and Franklin Creeks in Contra Costa County; and Tomales Bay, CA. Study 1 monitors salmonid smolt outmigration. Study 2 is a juvenile salmonid diet composition study. Study 3 is a spawner survey study. Study 4 focuses on summer/fall juvenile salmonid distribution, population abundance, and habitat monitoring. Study 5 is a juvenile salmonid winter habitat utilization study. Study 6 uses a floating resistance-board weir-trap to monitor adult
The researchers propose to capture juvenile fish via backpack electrofishing, beach seining, screw trapping, and fyke- and hoop-netting. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled, and released. They would also be observed during snorkel surveys. A subsample of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and receive passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. Adult fish would primarily be collected via weir, but a few individuals would be captured via screw trap and fyke net. Adults would also be observed during spawning and snorkel surveys. Adults captured at the weir would be captured, handled (anesthetized, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A subsample of captured adults would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged. Some tissues may be collected from carcasses encountered during the spawning surveys. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is seeking to renew a permit that currently authorizes them take juvenile and adult CR chum salmon; LCR, UWR, UCR spring-run, SnkR fall-run, and SnkR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon; LCR, OC, and SONCC coho salmon; and LCR, UWR, MCR, UCR, and SnkR basin steelhead in all Oregon State waters. The purpose of the research is to assess environmental impairment from pollutants and evaluate the effectiveness of management activities in protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems. The scientific research permit would authorize listed species to be taken under four DEQ programs: (1) Biomonitoring Program, (2) Oregon Toxics Monitoring Program, (3) Mixing Zone Surveys, and (4) Spill Impact and Cleanup Effectiveness Evaluations. Together, these programs are used to assess watershed and aquatic community health, determine the presence and effects of contaminants, and gauge the effectiveness of waste treatment and spill cleanup procedures. The information gathered would help the DEQ fulfill its mission to assess, restore, enhance, and maintain the quality of Oregon's waters, as directed by state and Federal laws. The research would benefit listed species by providing information on watershed health and contaminants—information that would be used to inform efforts to protect and restore salmonid habitat.
The DEQ proposes to capture fish from spring through fall using backpack and boat electrofishing, seining, and angling. After capturing the fish, the researchers would quickly transfer them to buckets of aerated water, weigh and measure some of them, and release them near the site of their capture within 20 minutes. No drugs or anesthesia would be used. The researchers propose to intentionally kill small numbers of non-listed, resident fish. The researchers would not intentionally kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.
Mike Podlech, an independent researcher, is seeking to renew a research permit that would authorize him to take juvenile and adult CCC coho salmon and CCC steelhead while monitoring population trends in Squaw Creek, Pescadero Creek, and Mill Creek, CA. The research would benefit affected species by providing population data to inform ongoing watershed restoration and salmonid recovery efforts. The research includes three studies. The objective of Study 1 (Squaw Creek) is to continue a 39-year monitoring program of the juvenile CCC steelhead population in a largely undisturbed watershed. Study 2 (Pescadero Creek) aims to expand upon limited baseline CCC steelhead and CCC coho salmon population data and initiate long-term smolt outmigration monitoring in a degraded watershed. Mill Creek (Study 3) would take place in a tributary to San Vicente Creek, the southernmost watershed with a remnant natural CCC coho salmon population. Salmonid populations in the San Vicente Creek watershed have been studied extensively over the past two decades, but the Mill Creek tributary has received relatively little attention. However, a legacy dam was removed from Mill Creek in 2021 and juvenile CCC coho salmon were detected in the stream for the first time in 2022. Study 3 is intended to monitor the trajectory of the population and measure the upstream range of CCC coho salmon in this tributary and thereby help inform future management decisions for the benefit of the listed coho.
Under the three studies, juveniles would be collected via backpack electrofishing and fyke nets. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled, and released. A subsample of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged. Though adult fish would not be targeted, a few individuals might be collected via fyke net. All captured adults would simply be handled and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's), South Coast Region is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult SC steelhead in order to monitor the species' population status, trends, spatial structure, and life history diversity in an area stretching from Topanga Canyon to Santa Maria, CA. This long-term monitoring study would benefit SC steelhead by providing data to inform management decisions and recovery efforts.
Juvenile fish would be collected via backpack electrofishing, dip net, fyke net, minnow trap, weir, hook-and-line angling, and beach seine. They would also be observed during snorkel surveys. Most juvenile fish would simply be captured, handled, and released, but a subsample would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged. Adult fish would be collected via dip net, hook-and-line angling, beach seine, trap, and weir, and they would also be observed during snorkel surveys. Spawned adults or post-spawn carcasses would be enumerated during spawning surveys. A subsample of captured adults would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
The CDFW is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult SacR winter-run Chinook salmon, CVS Chinook salmon, and CCV steelhead, and juvenile SDPS green sturgeon. The purpose of this study is to monitor SDPS green sturgeon recruitment to the juvenile life stage and to learn more about green sturgeon movement patterns (including ocean entry) and habitat use in the lower Sacramento River, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and greater San Francisco. Though green sturgeon are
Juvenile green sturgeon would be collected by gill netting them. A subsample of the juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
ICF International (a consulting firm) is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take juvenile SacR winter-run Chinook salmon, CVS Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon in order to determine how juvenile salmonids use the San Francisco estuary for rearing. This study would benefit affected species by providing a better understanding of fine-scale distribution patterns of fishes in navigation channels and near dredge operations in the San Francisco Estuary. This, in turn, would inform ongoing and proposed restoration projects. The research includes two studies: (1) investigating the use of alternative monitoring techniques including SONAR and environmental DNA (eDNA) to monitor fish species near restoration projects and dredge operations, and (2) evaluating non-invasive sampling methods to supplement physical fish collection by pairing trawls with acoustic methods and eDNA data to provide an estimate of rare species biomass and habitat use.
Juvenile fish would be collected via plankton nets, bottom trawl, and midwater trawl. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled, and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
The University of Washington (UW) is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to continue to take annually juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, PS/GB DPS bocaccio, PS/GB DPS yelloweye rockfish, HCS chum salmon, and adult SDPS eulachon in order to study the fish communities associated with tideflats with and without seagrass in Puget Sound and coastal Washington. This study would fill current information gaps on how habitat structure impacts higher trophic levels in nearshore habitats in the Pacific Northwest, and benefit ESA-listed salmon and steelhead recovery by reducing the uncertainty around current ecosystem linkages that are used to select habitat sites to preserve and restore.
Juvenile salmon, steelhead, and rockfish and adult eulachon would be collected via beach seine, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the ESA-listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The NMFS West Coast Region is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take adult LCR Chinook salmon, CC Chinook salmon, SacR winter-run Chinook salmon, CVS Chinook salmon, and SDPS green sturgeon in order to characterize the physical interaction between green sturgeon and bottom trawl nets used in the CA halibut fishery that operates out of Half Moon Bay and San Francisco, CA. This study would benefit green sturgeon by providing information to evaluate and develop methods to minimize gear interactions and bycatch of green sturgeon.
Adult green sturgeon would be collected bottom trawl. Green sturgeon adults would be captured, handled (anesthetized, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. Though green sturgeon are the target species, LCR, CC, SacR and CVS Chinook salmon might also be encountered. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
The Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take adult CCC coho salmon and CCC steelhead in order to gather data on their genetics and life histories in the San Lorenzo River watershed, CA. This study would benefits affected species by proving abundance assessments and life history data and thereby help facilitate recovery actions.
Adult fish would be collected from a fish ladder at the Felton Diversion Facility weir on the San Lorenzo River. Adult fish would be captured, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released; a subsample of them would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled, and PIT-tagged. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
TRPA Fish Biologists (a consulting firm) is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take juvenile SacR winter-run Chinook salmon, CVS Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon while conducting seasonal presence/absence and relative abundance surveys for native fish species in a delta wetland area known as The Big Ditch on the Peterson Ranch in eastern Solano County, California. Before this study, no information was available on ESA-listed species presence or seasonal use of the Big Ditch Project area. The study would benefit the affected species by continuing to provide baseline information on seasonal fish use and thereby inform habitat restoration actions.
Juvenile fish would be collected via beach seine and minnow trap. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled, and released, and a subsample of them would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged prior. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
TRPA Fish Biologists are seeking to modify a permit that currently authorizes them to take juvenile and adult CCV steelhead with the purpose of providing information on fish distribution, relative abundance, and diversity in Ulatis Flood Control Project (Ulatis Project) stream channels. The Ulatis Project is located in the Vacaville-Elmira urban corridor in CA and is made up of approximately 43.5 miles (~70km) of realigned and engineered stream channels that were created to alleviate recurring floods in the lower Ulatis watershed. The modification would entail adding sampling locations (middle and upper Ulatis and Alamo Creek channels); it would also require adding small amounts of take for juvenile CCV steelhead. The study would benefit CCV steelhead by providing biological data (lengths, weights, and counts) on the fish populations in the lower basin. This information would be used to monitor CCV steelhead distribution and diversity and to assess population responses to managed flows.
Juvenile fish would be collected via backpack electrofishing. A subsample of captured juveniles would be
Washington State University (WSU) is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to annually take adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, and SDPS green sturgeon in order to study the reproductive physiology of pink salmon and genetics and population structure of Pacific spiny dogfish in Puget Sound. The study of pink salmon reproductive biology is likely to benefit ESA-listed salmon and steelhead by providing a better understanding of the molecular processes governing the regulation of age at maturity and tissue remodeling in Pacific salmonids using an unlisted model organism. The age at maturity of Pacific salmon and steelhead has important implications for their migratory behavior and reproductive timing and success.
Fish would be collected via hook-and-line angling over approximately 4 days of sampling between July and September in multiple locations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. ESA-listed species are not being targeted by this sampling, but up to one adult from each hatchery or natural-origin component of the above species may be unintentionally captured. Any ESA-listed species captured would be handled (checked for marks or tags and potentially measured) and quickly released. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The U.S. Marine Corps is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult SC steelhead during the course of documenting their biodiversity and freshwater habitat in the three largest watersheds located on U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton: Santa Mateo Creek, San Onofre Creek, and the Santa Margarita River, CA. The study would benefit SC steelhead by providing species presence and habitat suitability data to inform future management and recovery strategies (
Juveniles would be collected via backpack electrofishing and observed at weirs, fish ladders, and dams, and during snorkel surveys. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled, and released. A subsample of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged. Adults would be observed at weirs, fish ladders, and dams and during snorkel surveys. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is seeking a 5-year permit to enhance the propagation and survival of SnkR steelhead in Big Bear Creek in northern Idaho. Under this permit, the IDFG would trap adult natural steelhead in the Big Bear Creek watershed and transport them to a point upstream of Big Bear Falls (a semi-impassable barrier) and release them back into Big Bear Creek. The adults would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled, radio-tagged, and transported in 50-gallon (~189.27 L) aerated tanks approximately 2 miles (~3.22 km) upstream. In addition, the IDFG would use backpack electrofishing to sample juvenile steelhead upstream from the falls, and a screw trap to sample them at the mouth of Big Bear Creek. All captured juveniles would be anesthetized, weighed, measured, tissue-sampled, and PIT-tagged.
The purpose of this project is to improve steelhead access to spawning and juvenile rearing habitat above Big Bear Falls. Rearing capacity in the Big Bear Creek watershed is limited, and life cycle modelling indicates enhanced adult steelhead passage at the falls could increase smolt production by an additional 5,000 smolts per year. Transporting adult steelhead around Big Bear Falls would benefit listed fish by increasing available habitat capacity in the drainage and thereby potentially alleviate density-dependent effects and increase population productivity. The IDFG does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the activities.
The Makah Tribe is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult fish from every species listed in the first part of this notice except for SDPS eulachon and green sturgeon. This proposed work would expand salmon research under four specific areas of investigation: (1) improving knowledge of Chinook salmon ecology in marine waters of northwestern Washington (with a focus on winter and early spring); (2) better understanding how offshore troll fishery gear affects Chinook and Coho salmon injury and mortality rates (specifically with regard to hook size); (3) improving understanding of the factors limiting Lake Ozette sockeye salmon recovery; and (4) monitoring the recent increase in abundance of invasive European green crabs (EGC) in Makah Bay, its tributaries, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Each of these studies would provide information addressing data gaps or current threats that would help the Makah Tribe manage their fisheries resources, and inform recovery actions for ESA-listed salmonid species.
As part of the first effort, adult or subadult salmon or steelhead may collected by hook-and-line angling. This study targets Chinook and coho salmon, so any other salmon or steelhead would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks and tags) and released. Captured Chinook and coho salmon would be handled and have scale and fin clip samples collected, and those in suitable condition would be anesthetized and tagged with popup satellite archival tags or acoustic tags as appropriate based on their size. During investigations of hooking injury and mortality rates, adult or subadult fish would be collected by hook-and-line angling using barbless J hooks of variable size (1/0 and 6/0), handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks and tags), checked for hooking location and any injuries, and then have the hook removed and be released following catch-and-release best practices. No ESA-listed species are specifically targeted in either of these studies, but some may be unintentionally captured as a part of this effort and ESA-listed Chinook and coho salmon species are components of the target species of salmon being studied in these areas.
For the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon study, both juvenile and adult salmon would be collected. Juveniles would be collected via minnow or screw traps (or smolt wheel), and adults would be collected via weir or gill/tangle netting. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled (measured, weighted, and checked for marks or tags), anesthetized, and tagged with surgically implanted acoustic tags prior to release. Captured adults would be handled (measured, weighted, and checked for marks or tags), anesthetized, tissue-sampled, and tagged with surgically implanted acoustic tags prior to release. Lastly, the effort to monitor the presence and abundance of invasive EGC involves setting small minnow traps, shrimp pots, or modified fukui traps that may unintentionally capture juvenile ESA-listed fish. Any fish unintentionally captured would be released from traps
The IDFG is seeking a 5-year permit to conduct three studies in the Clearwater River basin in Idaho. They are (1) Standard Resident Fish Stream Surveys, (2) Juvenile
The purposes of the work are (1) to gather information on fish distribution, abundance, and composition—with an emphasis on evaluating the distribution and impacts of non-native predator fish; (2) assess the genetic and behavioral influences that hatchery-produced steelhead in the Clearwater River watershed have on ESA-listed, natural
Cramer Fish Sciences is seeking two new permits that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult SacR winter-run Chinook salmon during the course of conducting two Chinook egg-to-fry survival studies in the Sacramento River, CA, between Keswick Dam and the confluence of the river and Clear Creek. The purpose of both these studies is to estimate Chinook salmon egg mortality and temperature exposure as well as intergravel water velocity and dissolved oxygen concentration in artificial redds placed in Chinook fall- and winter-run spawning habitat. Additionally, egg survival would be evaluated in natural fall- and winter-run redds that are predicted to be exposed to temperatures above mortality thresholds. Though SacR winter-run Chinook are not the target species, a few individual fish might be encountered or observed during stream or snorkel surveys. The research is not expected to kill any ESA-listed fish.
Stillwater Sciences is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile NC steelhead, CC Chinook salmon, and CCC coho salmon while assessing aquatic habitat conditions and fish use in the lower Navarro River and its estuary in California—including some of the river's lower tributary reaches (Marsh, Flume, Murray, Barton, Ray, and Mustard gulches). The research would benefit ESA-listed species by providing information on opportunities and constraints for salmonid habitat restoration in the estuary and lower mainstem Navarro River corridor. Documenting seasonal salmonid distribution, habitat use, and relative abundance of fish species would help managers develop and prioritize restoration actions for the lower Navarro River and estuary and contribute to those actions' effectiveness.
Juvenile fish would be collected via dip net, beach seine, and minnow trap and observed during snorkel surveys. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled, and released; a subsample would be anesthetized, tissue-sampled and PIT-tagged. The researchers do not intend to kill any ESA-listed fish, but a small number may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application and conservation plan for renewal of an incidental take permit.
Notice is hereby given that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) has applied in due form for a permit pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The permit application is for the incidental take of ESA-listed shortnose (
Written comments must be received at the appropriate address (see
The application is available for download and review at
Celeste Stout, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources at
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the `taking' of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides for authorizing incidental take of listed species. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.
The following species are included in the conservation plan and permit application: Atlantic (
NMFS received a draft permit application from GA DNR on January 4, 2023. Based on a review of the application, NMFS requested further information. The applicant submitted a complete application on June 15, 2023 for take of ESA-listed shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that may be caught incidental to the Georgia shad fishery. The State of Georgia has amended their commercial fishing regulations for the Georgia shad fishery to minimize the incidental capture of ESA-listed shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Regulations include the closure of upstream waters in the Altamaha and Savannah rivers, as well as the closure of Ogeechee River to commercial shad harvest. Additional regulations include closing portions of each river for 2 days each week and restricting the length of nets used which prevents nets from extending more than
The Georgia shad fishery is open from January 1 to as late as April 30 each year, but typically ends March 31. Georgia regulations require that sturgeon captured in shad nets be released unharmed into the waters from which they were taken. GA DNR requests 3-year running averages for takes to account for the potential for a high-take year before or after low-take years. GA DNR estimates that incidental bycatch would not exceed 60 shortnose sturgeon per year (no more than 180 in a 3-year period) and 40 Atlantic sturgeon per year (no more than 120 in a 3-year period) in the Altamaha River, 5 shortnose sturgeon per year (no more than 15 in a 3-year period) and 25 Atlantic sturgeon per year (no more than 75 in a 3-year period) in the Savannah River. A mortality rate of approximately 2.3 percent is anticipated based on the best available data.
GA DNR would use a combination of a trip ticket system (self-reporting by fishermen) and direct observations to monitor the number of sturgeon incidentally captured each month in the commercial shad fishery. Since 2013, the GA DNR has conducted fishery-dependent efforts to observe a minimum of 10 percent of the commercial shad trips occurring annually in both the Altamaha and Savannah rivers.
GA DNR's conservation plan describes measures designed to minimize, monitor, and mitigate the incidental take of ESA-listed sturgeon. The conservation plan includes Georgia's amended commercial fishing regulations for the Georgia shad fishery, which are expected to minimize the bycatch of sturgeon by closing to shad fishing sections of the rivers that previously had the highest bycatch rates. These closures would also protect known and suspected sturgeon spawning sites. Georgia regulations require that sturgeon captured in shad nets be released unharmed into the waters from which they were taken. GA DNR would use a combination of a trip ticket system (self-reporting by fishermen) and direct observations to observe a minimum of 10 percent of the commercial shad trips occurring annually in both the Altamaha and Savannah rivers for the incidental take of sturgeon in the commercial shad fishery. In these efforts, GA DNR staff observe active fishing efforts and record information on captured sturgeon. Information collected on captured sturgeon include species identification; lengths (total and fork); and condition of the fish. Additional monitoring and mitigation actions include having GA DNR staff scan the fish for the presence of a Passive Integrated Transponders (PIT) tag, and if one is not found, GA DNR staff would insert a PIT tag into the fish. They will also collect a fin-clip from captured sturgeon to provide to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for genetic study. Under current collaborative efforts, GA DNR provides fin-clips and outside funding sources are used to process said fin-clips. Should outside funds not be available for processing GA DNR would provide fin-clips and fund the processing of up to 15 samples/year. These fin-clips aid in better studying and understanding the genetic diversity and conservation of sturgeon found within Georgia and other states. Additional mitigation efforts include the education and outreach efforts conducted annually by GA DNR through materials presented to commercial shad fishermen. These materials, including detailed identification aids and specific instructions on properly handling captured sturgeon, provide needed information critical for helping fishermen better understand how they can help protect and sustain these endangered species. Additionally, GA DNR Law Enforcement continues to routinely and randomly patrol both the open and closed sections of both rivers.
GA DNR considered and rejected two other alternatives: (1) No change to commercial shad regulations, and (2) establish new upper boundaries for commercial shad fishing on the Altamaha, Ogeechee, and Savannah rivers and close the Satilla and St. Mary's rivers to commercial shad fishing.
Monitoring would be funded by GA DNR's Annual Operating Budget.
Issuing a permit would constitute a Federal action requiring NMFS to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments received during the comment period to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. If NMFS determines that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued for incidental takes of ESA-listed sturgeon. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 20, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower & Reserve Affairs, Attn: Director, Civil-Military Programs, 1500 Defense Pentagon, Room 2E565, Washington, DC 20301-1500 or contact Capt. Rick Howell,
The DD Form X854, “JROTC Instructor Prohibited Activities Acknowledgement,” certifies the understanding and acknowledgement of activities that the instructor will not participate in with a cadet, trainee, or student. This collection will be used by each education facility where a JROTC program is conducted.
The DD Form X859, “JROTC Student/Parent/Guardian Acknowledgement of Expected Standards of Conduct and Participation,” documents student and parent or guardian's understanding of the expectations, responsibilities, and prohibitions related to participation in the JROTC program, and is used by the Military Service and hosting School District to establish standard operating procedures and code of conduct amongst the instructor and trainee. It also informs the student and parent or guardian of the resources available should an incident take place that requires assistance and or reporting.
The DD Form X858, “JROTC Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)” establishes the contractual acknowledgement and understanding of the responsibilities that the school/instructor/student must maintain in the program.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 20, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 20, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, ATTN: Executive Services Directorate, Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03F09-09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100, Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574.
These earlier IPP outcome assessments are problematic. The use of different instruments makes it difficult to compare results between studies. Thus, it is unsurprising that the satisfaction results vary widely. For example, one study found that 91% of IPP patients were `very satisfied' whereas another study showed only 69% of men were satisfied with their IPP. This demonstrates the importance of a standardized IPP satisfaction questionnaire.
Recently, the first English-validated IPP satisfaction questionnaire- the Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI) was developed. This 16-item questionnaire assesses overall satisfaction, pain, function and appearance in men with IPPs. With the advent of SSIPI, it is vital that we use this novel instrument to accurately access IPP satisfaction in a military population.
The authority that authorizes this collection is: § 876.3350, 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2), Title 10, Title 20, Title 42, American Urological Association, America Board of Urology, and the Sexual Medicine Society of North America.
The respondents are adult men with inflatable penile implants who are
Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OASD(PA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instrument, please write to the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, ATTN: Community Engagement Directorate, 1400 Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400, or call Glen Roberts at (703) 697-6005.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to CNA Corporation (Center
• What are the barriers to safe firearm storage practices among different groups?
• Do different demographic groups respond to messages differently, and if so, how should messaging be targeted? For example, would these servicemembers respond more positively if their demographic group were featured in safety appeals?
• What principles could be introduced to OSD lethal means safety messaging to make it better resonate across demographic groups?
This survey will provide unique information to help DoD (a) determine what attitudinal and other barriers prevent service members from adopting safe firearms storage practices, (b) decide which aspects of a safe storage message are most persuasive in overcoming those barriers, and (c) learn whether female and black service members respond differently to safe storage messaging. The findings from the survey will support DoD Instruction 6400.09's instruction to focus suicide prevention efforts on research-based programs, policies, and practices. They will also assist in executing data-informed actions to reduce and stop self-directed harm (Section 1.2.b), promoting an understanding of lethal means safety among the military community (Section 4.3.b), and addressing the needs of high-risk groups (Section 4.7.a.).
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 20, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Navy Survey Program Office, 701 S Courthouse Road Room, Arlington, VA 22204, ATTN: Dr. Richard Linton, or call 703-604-6058.
R
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Sunshine Act notice; Notice of public meeting agenda.
Public Meeting: U.S. Election Assistance Commission
September 6, 2023, 1:00 p.m. EST
The Election Assistance Commission hearing room at 633 3rd St. NW, Washington, DC 20001. The meeting is open to the public and will be live streamed on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission YouTube Channel:
Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897-9285, Email:
The agenda includes panel discussions with representatives from the EAC, election administrators, and subject matter experts. Panelists will give remarks and respond to questions from the EAC Commissioners.
The full agenda will be posted in advance on the events page of the EAC website:
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a virtual meeting of the Fusion Energy
Monday, September 18, 2023; 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
This meeting is open to the public. This meeting will be held virtually via Zoom. Instructions for Zoom, as well as any updates to meeting times or meeting agenda, can be found on the FESAC meeting website at:
Dr. Samuel J. Barish, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES); U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Science; 1000 Independence Avenue SW; Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903-2917, Email address:
On July 31, 2023, the Town of Bedford, Virginia submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Virginia DEQ), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,
If Virginia DEQ 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).
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
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, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) 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:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and (b) the State Historic Preservation Office, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Essex as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Essex filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD), including a proposed process plan and schedule, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
You may register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by October 14, 2023.
p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or
q. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings for the project to receive input on the scope of the NEPA document. An evening meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on September 13, 2023, at the Elk's Lodge #65 in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and will focus on receiving input from the public. A daytime meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. on September 14, 2023, at Lawrence Public Library in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and will focus on the concerns of resource agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Indian Tribes. We invite all interested agencies, Indian Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and individuals to attend one or both meetings. Spanish-English translation services will be provided. If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments, a time limit of 3 minutes may need to be implemented for each commentor.
The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list and Essex's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project. All interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend. Please RSVP via email to
Lawrence Gateway parking lot.
Participants will meet at the Lawrence Gateway parking lot and depart to the Lawrence at 9:15 a.m. (EDT). Essex will provide transportation to the project facilities. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to the Lawrence Gateway parking lot.
All persons attending the environmental site review must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes or boots. The applicant will provide hard hats to attendees for entry into low-overhead areas, if needed; however, participants who have their own hardhats should bring them.
At the scoping meetings, Commission staff will: (1) initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the potential of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe to act as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n of this document.
Commission staff are moderating the scoping meetings. The meetings are recorded by an independent stenographer and become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project. Individuals, NGOs, Indian Tribes, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA document.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Generic Clearance for Participatory Science and Crowdsourcing Projects (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2521.39, OMB Control No. 2080-0083) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2024. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2023.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0659 referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, 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.
Heather Drumm, ORD-OSAPE, (8104R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-8239; email address:
Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments
T
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to make information publicly available and to publish information in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document must be received on or before September 20, 2023.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0061, through the
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 7/01/2023 to 7/31/2023. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN, or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
No.
1.
2.
In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices screened by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment (
In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information that has been received during this time-period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing a public meeting of the chartered Science Advisory Board. The purpose of the meeting is to: receive briefings from EPA; discuss a proposed SAB project to provide advice to EPA on environmental justice analysis; conduct quality reviews of three draft SAB reports titled:
1. Thursday, September 21, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
2. Friday, September 22, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The September 21-22, 2023 meeting will be conducted in person at the Washington Plaza Hotel, located at 10 Thomas Circle NW, Washington, DC 20005, and virtually. Please refer to the SAB website at
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this notice may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone (202) 564-2155, or email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement agreement.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to enter into an Administrative Settlement Agreement for Removal Action by Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser with Seven Seas Terminals, LLC concerning the Mississippi Phosphates Corp. Superfund Site. The settlement agreement addresses a removal action to be performed at the site by Seven Seas Terminals, LLC, a Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.
The Agency will consider public comments on the proposed settlement agreement until September 20, 2023. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement agreement, if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement agreement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice.
Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the date of the first meeting of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) under its renewed charter running from September 2023 to September 2025.
October 25, 2023. The meeting will come to order at 2:00 p.m.
The meeting will be conducted via video conference and will be available to the public via the internet at
You may also contact Christi Shewman, Designated Federal Officer, at
The NANC meeting is open to the public on the internet via live feed from the FCC's web page at
Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on August 30, 2023.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC and virtual (This meeting will be a hybrid meeting).
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer; Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than September 5, 2023.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding privacy training.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Additionally, submit a copy to GSA through
Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-969-7207, or
9000-0182, Privacy Training.
This clearance covers the information that contractors must submit to comply with the following FAR requirements:
• 52.224-3(d). This clause requires contractors to:
(1) Maintain a record of initial and annual privacy training, for the contractor's employees that: (a) have access to a system of records; (b) create, collect, use, process, store, maintain, disseminate, disclose, dispose, or otherwise handle personally identifiable information on behalf of an agency; or (c) design, develop, maintain, or operate a system of records; and
(2) Provide documentation of completion of such privacy training to the contracting officer if requested.
The contracting officer will use the information in contract administration and to establish that all applicable contractor and subcontractor employees comply with the privacy training requirements.
A 60-day notice was published in the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of five AHRQ subcommittee meetings.
The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group (IRG) Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. Each subcommittee meeting will be closed to the public.
See below for dates of meetings:
Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
(to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)
In accordance with section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the above-listed scientific peer review groups, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). 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.
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). NHIS is a voluntary and confidential household-based survey that collects demographic and health-related information from a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population, and has been in the field continuously since 1957.
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0070 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0214, Exp. 12/31/2023)—Revision — National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C.), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States. The annual National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a major source of general statistics on the health of the U.S. population and has been in the field continuously since 1957. This voluntary and confidential household-based survey collects demographic and health-related information from a nationally representative sample of households and noninstitutionalized, civilian persons throughout the country. NHIS data have long been used by government, academic, and private researchers to evaluate both general health and specific issues, such as smoking, diabetes, health care coverage, and access to health care. The survey is also a leading source of data for the Congressionally-mandated “Health US” and related publications, as well as the single most important source of statistics to track progress toward HHS health objectives.
The NHIS sample adult and sample child questionnaires include annual core content that is scheduled to be fielded in the survey every year, rotating content that is fielded periodically, emerging content to address new topics of growing interest, and sponsored content that is fielded when external funding is available. Rotating sample adult and sample child core content on service utilization that was on the NHIS in 2023 will rotate off in 2024. Content on chronic pain and preventive services will also rotate off the sample adult core, and content on stressful life events will rotate off the sample child core. The 2024 sample adult rotating core will include items on health-related behaviors including smoking history and cessation, alcohol use, fatigue, physical activity, walking, doctor's advice to exercise, and sleep—content previously fielded on the 2022 NHIS. It will also include content on allergies and other health conditions and psychological distress, content that was previously fielded in 2021. The 2024 sample child rotating core will include questions on health-related behaviors including physical activity, neighborhood characteristics, sleep, screen time, and height and weight which were previously fielded in 2022. Sponsored content on vision and hearing will be removed from both the sample adult and sample child questionnaires. Sponsored content on arthritis will be removed from the sample adult questionnaire. Sponsored content on social support and stressful life events will be removed from the sample child questionnaire. Sponsored content on cancer control and immunizations will remain, but the specific questions will change. Sponsored cancer control content on breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening, family history of cancers, and genetic testing for cancer risk will be removed from the sample adult questionnaire. Sponsored cancer control content in the 2024 NHIS sample adult questionnaire will focus on cigarette smoking history, lung cancer screening, environment for walking, and sun safety, using similar questions that were used in the 2020 NHIS. Sponsored content for the 2024 NHIS sample adult and sample child questionnaire will also include questions about taste and smell that are similar to content included in the 2021 NHIS. Sponsored content on social support and loneliness will also be added to the 2024 NHIS sample adult questionnaire.
Like in past years, and in accordance with the 1995 initiative to increase the integration of surveys within the DHHS, respondents to the 2021 NHIS will serve as the sampling frame for the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A subsample of NHIS respondents and/or members of commercial survey panels may be identified to participate in short, web-based methodological and cognitive testing activities to evaluate the questionnaire and/or inform the development of new rotating and sponsored content using web and/or mail survey tools. In addition, subsamples of NHIS respondents may be recontacted by web, phone, or mail to ask follow-up questions on topics that are already included in the NHIS. The NHIS-Teen is a follow-back survey of adolescents that was fielded from 2021 to 2023 and may be fielded again between 2024 and 2026 if funding is available. The NHIS also includes content that is used to benchmark estimates and calibrate survey weights from probability-based online commercial survey panels as part of the NCHS Rapid Surveys System.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 39,608 annual burden hours to collect from 2024-2026. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Noise Exposures and Hearing Loss in the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on May 12, 2023 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Noise Exposures and Hearing Loss in the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Oil and gas extraction (OGE) workers play an important role in supporting the United States economy and help fulfill the energy needs of Americans and American businesses. OGE workers have significant risks for a variety of exposures at oil and gas well sites. There has been no significant occupational noise exposure research in the United States onshore upstream OGE sector. This proposed project will characterize relationships between noise exposure, chemical exposures, hearing loss, and hearing loss prevention practices within the onshore OGE industry. Primary data will be collected using three approaches. First, researchers will collect direct measurements of noise and ototoxic chemicals on job sites, including personal exposure assessments of OGE workers. Second, researchers will use a questionnaire to collect information on noise and chemical exposures, hearing loss, and associated factors among OGE workers. Third, audiometry tests performed by NIOSH will be offered to industry partners to further understand extent of hearing loss amongst OGE workers.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 106 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on April 7, 2023 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) (OMB Control No. 0920-0314, Exp. 12/31/2024)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “family formation, growth, and dissolution,” as well as “determinants of health” and “utilization of health care” in the United States. This clearance request includes the data collection in 2024-2026 for the continuous National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).
The NSFG was conducted periodically between 1973 and 2002, continuously in 2006-2010, and after a break of 15 months, continuously in 2011-2019, by the NCHS, CDC. Each year, about 13,500 households will be screened, with about 5,000 participants interviewed annually. Participation in the NSFG is completely voluntary and confidential. Interviews are expected to average 50 minutes for males and 75 minutes for females. The response rate during the 2011-2019 data collection period ranged from 64.5% to 74.0%, and the cumulative response rate for this 8-year fieldwork period was 67.7%.
The NSFG program produces descriptive statistics which document factors associated with birth and pregnancy rates, including contraception, infertility, marriage, cohabitation, and sexual activity, in the US household population 15-49 years (15-44 prior to 2015), as well as behaviors that affect the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD). The survey also disseminates statistics on the medical care associated with contraception, infertility, pregnancy, and related health conditions.
NSFG data users include the DHHS programs that fund the survey, including CDC/NCHS and eleven others within the Department of Health and Human Services:
The NSFG is also used by state and local governments (primarily for
This submission requests approval for a revision to NSFG data collection for three years. The revision request includes the increase of the main survey incentive from $40 to $60, a small set of questionnaire revisions beginning in Year 3 (2024) data collection and to conduct several methodological studies designed to improve the efficiency and validity of NSFG data collection for the purposes described above. The total estimated annualized time burden to respondents is 6,584 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). NHSN provides facilities, States, regions, and the nation with data necessary to identify problem areas, measure the progress of prevention efforts, and ultimately eliminate healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) nationwide.
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0068 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) (OMB Control No. 0920-0666, Exp. 6/30/2026)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infection Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious
Data reported under the PS Component are used to determine the magnitude of the healthcare-associated adverse events and trends in the rates of the events, in the distribution of pathogens, and in the adherence to prevention practices. Data will help detect changes in the epidemiology of adverse events resulting from new medical therapies and changing patient risks. Additionally, reported data is being used to describe the epidemiology of antimicrobial use and resistance and to better understand the relationship of antimicrobial therapy to this rising problem. Under the HPS Component, protocols and data on events—both positive and adverse—are used to determine: (1) the magnitude of adverse events in healthcare personnel; and (2) compliance with immunization and sharps injuries safety guidelines. Under the BV Component, data on adverse reactions and incidents associated with blood transfusions are reported and analyzed to provide national estimates of adverse reactions and incidents. Under the LTCF Component, data is captured from skilled nursing facilities. Reporting methods under the LTCF component have been created by using forms from the PS Component as a model with modifications to specifically address the specific characteristics of LTCF residents and the unique data needs of these facilities reporting into NHSN. The Respiratory Tract Infection Form (RTI)—will not to be used by NHSN users, but as part of an EIP project with four EIP sites. The Form is titled
The NHSN data collection was previously approved in June of 2023 for 6,209,922 responses and 1,693,215 annual burden hours. The proposed changes in this Revision include modifications to 15 existing data collection forms and one new form. CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated annual burden 1,524,039 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is seeking nominations for membership on the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics (BSC, NCHS). The BSC, NCHS consists of up to 15 experts including the Chair in fields associated with the scientific and technical program objectives of the Center.
Nominations for membership on the BSC, NCHS will be accepted on a rolling basis. To be considered for the upcoming nomination slate, submissions should be received no later than September 22, 2023. Submissions received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be emailed to
Rebecca Hines, M.H.S., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Mailstop P-08, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782. Telephone: (301) 458-4715; Email:
Nominations are sought for individuals who have the expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishment of the objective of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics (BSC, NCHS) to provide advice and guidance on statistical and epidemiological research, data collection, and activities that support NCHS, such as: determinants of health; extent and nature of illness and disability, including life expectancy; incidence of various acute and chronic illnesses/impairments and accidental injuries; prevalence of chronic diseases and impairments; infant and maternal morbidity and mortality; nutrition status; environmental, social, and other hazards affecting health status; health resources associated with physician and dental visits, hospitalizations, nursing, extended care facilities, home health agencies, and other health institutions; utilization of health care in a broad array of settings; trends in prices/costs and sources of payments; federal, state, and local government expenditures for health care services; the relationship between demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and health characteristics; family formation, growth, and dissolution; new or improved methods for obtaining current data on the aforementioned factors; data security and confidentiality and
Nominees will be selected based on expertise in fields associated with statistical, demographic, and epidemiological research, such as biostatistics/biometry, survey methodology and polling, sociology, reproductive health, minority health, nutrition, social and behavioral health sciences, and population-based public and environmental health; public health practice,
The Board makes recommendations about opportunities for NCHS programs to examine and employ new approaches to monitoring and evaluating key public health, health policy, and public policy changes. This includes automation, data modernization, and technological improvements to enhance data collection, analysis, access, and reporting capabilities of the Center. Members of the BSC, NCHS are responsible for surveying the state-of-the-art of their respective disciplines, and reporting, as appropriate, to the full Board and recommending convening of workshops or symposia to educate or update all Board members.
The selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to accomplishing BSC, NCHS objectives (
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Board members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning of and annually during their terms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviews potential candidates for BSC, NCHS membership each year and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in June, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. Candidates should submit the following items:
Cover letter that includes a statement of interest for serving on the Board and the names of two professional references. Candidates may submit references from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one reference must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Current resume/curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, work and home postal mailing addresses, email address) in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
Short biographical sketch, including the top 3-5 areas of expertise.
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Assessing Fatigue and Fatigue Management in U.S. Onshore Oil and Gas Extraction. This study is designed to examine oil and gas extraction workers' determinants of fatigue and fatigue mitigation strategies.
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0071 by either of the following methods:
•
•
•
Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Assessing Fatigue and Fatigue Management in U.S. Onshore Oil and Gas Extraction—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Oil and gas extraction (OGE) workers play an important role in supporting the United States economy and help fulfill the energy needs of Americans and American businesses. OGE workers have significant risks for a variety of exposures at oil and gas well sites. There has been no significant fatigue research in the United States onshore upstream OGE sector. This proposed project will characterize relationships between sleep, alertness, fatigue, fatigue management, and related factors, within the onshore OGE industry. Primary data will be collected using three approaches. First, researchers will collect direct measurements of sleep and alertness among OGE workers. Second, researchers will use questionnaires to collect information on OGE worker demographics, occupation, general heath, normal working hours, commute times, physical sleeping environment, and typical sleep quality. Third, researchers will collect qualitative information through interviews with workers, front-line supervisors, health and safety leaders, as well as subject matter experts, to understand challenges and opportunities related to fatigue management in OGE.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 404 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP) Survey. This data collection will evaluate fire department implementation of the NIOSH FFFIPP recommendations, and assess whether NIOSH FFFIPP recommendations are utilized by fire departments to identify barriers to implementation of
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0069 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP) Survey (OMB Control No. 0920-1373, Exp. 10/31/2023)—Extension—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP) conducts independent investigations of fire fighter (FF) line-of-duty deaths (LODD) and recommends ways to prevent deaths and injuries. In 2003, an evaluation was conducted to determine the extent to which recommendations from NIOSH investigations of FF fatalities are being implemented by fire departments (FDs). Since then, there have been changes to the Program recommendations and methods of disseminating FFFIPP reports. For example, there have been changes to: (1) the details and types of recommendations for preventing FF fatalities; and (2) the method to disseminate the FFFIPP reports to FDs (driven in large part by cost). Dissemination methods have evolved from hardcopy mailings to FDs, to internet-based, with notifications of new FFFIPP reports by the fire service media and if FDs sign-up at the NIOSH website for notifications of new reports.
Understanding how, or if NIOSH recommendations are used by various types of FDs will allow a better understanding of barriers to the use of proven prevention recommendations and help identify approaches to improve the delivery of services to FDs. Additionally, we will gain insight into whether changes to the communication and dissemination have impacted the reach of these recommendations. Knowing if different types of FDs are aware of and willing to access FFFIPP reports and recommendations in non-print formats is critical, as these recommendations cannot have the intended impact of saving FF lives if large numbers of FDs do not know where to find NIOSH reports or have the resources to access them.
The purpose of this data collection is to assess FD implementation of the NIOSH FFFIPP recommendations and identify barriers to implementation of recommendations. Results will provide an understanding of current FD operational procedures, insight into MV-related activities and related policies, and identify whether FFFIPP recommendations are being utilized by FDs. Findings will inform strategies for communication of future recommendations and identify areas for potential intervention projects in order to improve the delivery of services and help ensure an effective and efficient stakeholder experience with the Program. The estimate for burden hours is based on a pilot test of the survey instrument by eight FD personnel. In the pilot test, the average time to complete the survey, including time for reviewing instructions, gathering needed information, and completing the survey was 10-25 minutes. There are screening questions at the beginning of the survey so all respondents may not actually participate. The respondent universe is based on: (1) 4,500 fire departments; (2) eight strata (region, department type); and (3) position (FF, chief, company officer). An estimated 13,500 respondents are anticipated to participate in the survey; the annual respondent burden is estimated to be 4,050 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled mChoice: Improving PrEP Uptake and Adherence among Minority MSM through Tailored Provider Training and Adherence Assistance in Two High Priority Settings. The collection is part of a research study designed to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention that utilizes evidence-based education and support tools to improve preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence among young men who have sex with men (YMSM).
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0072 by either of the following methods:
□
□
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7118; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention is requesting approval for 36 months of data collection titled, “mChoice: Improving PrEP Uptake and Adherence among Minority MSM through Tailored Provider Training and Adherence Assistance in Two High Priority Settings.” The purpose of this study is to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a clinic-based intervention that utilizes evidence-based education and support tools to improve preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence among young men who have sex with men (YMSM). The goals of this research study are to: (1) improve the overall PrEP experience of providers and YMSM patients; and (2) increase our understanding of provider and patient factors that influence the choice of PrEP regimen by MSM in clinical settings. This study will be carried out in four clinics in New York, NY (two clinics) and Birmingham, AL (two clinics).
Aim 1 of the study will enroll 400 YMSM (ages 18-39) who identify as male, non-binary, or genderqueer; were assigned male sex at birth; are taking or initiating PrEP; own a smartphone; understand and read English or Spanish; have a self-reported history of sex with men in the past 12-months; and live in the NYC or Birmingham, AL areas. Participants may identify as any race or ethnicity, but to ensure a diverse sample comprised mainly of racial/ethnic minority participants, the study will utilize recruitment controls to enroll at least 50% African American/Black and/or Hispanic/Latino participants. Patient participants will be recruited to the study through a combination of approaches including flyers and social media, referral, in-person outreach, and through word of mouth. Rolling enrollment will continue until enrollment targets are reached; each Aim 1 participant will be followed for 12 months. All participants will receive PrEP clinical services congruent with CDC PrEP guidelines. Participants using oral PrEP will receive CleverCap, an electronic medication monitoring device, that will track and support medication adherence. At the 3-month study visit, participants using oral PrEP will receive the mChoice mobile phone application, an evidence-based intervention that supports PrEP use through medication monitoring, study staff interaction, and other resources. Aim 1 assessments include: a baseline survey of self-reported demographic factors, sexual and drug use behaviors, and potential cofactors of sexual and drug use behavior including attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, traits, and other psychosocial factors; follow-up surveys at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month study visits which will assess experiences with PrEP, PrEP adherence, and behavioral and social factors; medication adherence data from CleverCap; participant use and voluntary self-reported adherence and HIV exposure risk-related data from the mChoice app; PrEP clinical care data from clinic electronic medical records; and urine studies assessing PrEP adherence. The information collected in Aim 1 will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the mChoice intervention to improve PrEP adherence and persistence, and to increase understanding of PrEP experiences and factors that influence PrEP choices among MSM in clinical settings.
Aim 2 of the study will enroll 30 YMSM who participated in Aim 1; 15 from New York and 15 from Alabama. Participants will be recruited at Aim 1 study visits. Study staff will conduct in-depth interviews with Aim 2 participants exploring their experiences with PrEP, reasons for PrEP choices, and thoughts about the mChoice intervention. Data collected in Aim 2 will contribute to the evaluation of the mChoice intervention, implementation, and contribute to understanding factors that influence PrEP choices by MSM in clinical settings.
Aim 3 of the study will include 20 health care providers (10 from New York and 10 from Alabama) involved in the direct delivery of PrEP services at participating clinical sites. Providers may include nurse practitioners, physicians, PrEP coordinators/navigators, medical assistants, and other cross-trained coordinators from the participating clinics. Providers will be recruited via flyers, emails to clinic staff, and referrals. Providers will receive education and training designed to improve knowledge of PrEP options and clinical recommendations and enhance provider communications with patients. Aim 3 includes practice facilitation, an intervention that includes identification of a clinic champion who will engage other providers in embracing PrEP recommendations, as well as ongoing support from a practice coach who will offer tools, resources, hands-on guidance, and content expertise to assist the clinic team in developing strategies to improve clinical PrEP services. Aim 3 assessments include notes from practice facilitation coaching sessions; in-depth interviews of participating providers exploring their experiences with the intervention and thoughts about providing PrEP clinical services; and a clinic assessment completed by clinic staff every six months to describe the current implementation of PrEP services at their clinical site. These data will inform ongoing practice improvement in PrEP clinical services and increase understanding of provider experiences with providing PrEP clinical services.
It is expected that half of screened persons will meet study eligibility. For all aims we anticipate that screening and completion of the locator form will each take five minutes. Study staff will assist Aim 1 participants with onboarding the CleverCap device and mChoice app, a process that will take 20 minutes. Aim 1 participants will complete the baseline survey once (anticipated 30 minutes completion time) and the follow-up survey four times (anticipated completion time 30 minutes each) over their 12-month participation period. Total study enrollment for Aim 1 is 400, over the 3-year data collection period the estimated annual enrollment is 134. Aims 2 and 3 interviews will take 60 minutes to complete. For Aim 2, total study enrollment is 30, over the 3-year data collection period the estimated annual enrollment is 10. For Aim 3, total study enrollment is 20, over the 3-year data collection period the estimated annual enrollment is seven. Additionally, a single Aim 3 participant at each of the four participating clinic sites will complete a clinic assessment form every six months throughout the study period.
There are no costs to the participants other than their time. The total number of burden hours is 1,323 across 36 months of data collection. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 441.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled National Surveillance of Community Water Systems and Corresponding Populations with the Recommended Fluoridation Level. This surveillance collects the fluoridation status of, and population served by the nation's 52,000 community water systems (CWS) which serve the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0073 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Surveillance of Community Water Systems and Corresponding Populations with the Recommended Fluoridation Level (OMB Control No. 0920-1319, Exp. 2/29/2024)—Extension—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Community water fluoridation is the process of adjusting the fluoride concentration of a community water system (CWS) to the level beneficial for prevention of dental caries as recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). Community water fluoridation is a major factor contributing to the large decline in caries in the U.S. in the past 75 years and is recognized as one of 10 great public health achievements of the twentieth century. Community water fluoridation reduces dental caries by 25% and is a safe and the cost-effective way to deliver fluoride to people of all ages, regardless of education and income level. It is especially important for populations with limited access to preventive dental measures.
CDC is authorized to collect the information under the U.S. Public Health Service Act. This data collection aligns with CDC's strategy to use public health surveillance to inform programs and policies to improve the oral health of the nation by reducing disparities and expanding access to effective prevention programs. CDC uses the Water Fluoridation Reporting System (WFRS) to collect water fluoridation coverage and quality throughout the U.S. This data allows CDC and States to monitor the performance and efficiency of their water fluoridation programs, which will improve and extend program delivery. Respondents to the information collection are State fluoridation managers or other State government officials designated by the State dental director or drinking water administrator. State participation in the data collection is voluntary.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 2,824 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is evaluating substances that have been nominated for inclusion on a list of bulk drug substances (active pharmaceutical ingredients) for which there is a clinical need (the 503B Bulks List). Drug products that outsourcing facilities compound using bulk drug substances on the 503B Bulks List can qualify for certain exemptions from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) provided certain conditions are met. This notice identifies two bulk drug substances that FDA has considered and is not including on the list at this time: ephedrine sulfate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate. Additional bulk drug substances nominated by the public for inclusion on this list are currently under consideration and will be the subject of future notices.
The announcement of the notice is published in the
For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to
Tracy Rupp, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3100.
Section 503B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b) describes the conditions that must be satisfied for drug products compounded in an outsourcing facility to be exempt from section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of drugs under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)), section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use), and section 582 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) (concerning drug supply chain security requirements).
Compounded drug products that meet the conditions set forth in section 503B are not exempt from current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements in section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)).
One of the conditions that must be met for a drug product compounded by an outsourcing facility to qualify for the exemptions under section 503B of the FD&C Act is that the outsourcing facility may not compound a drug using a bulk drug substance unless: (1) the bulk drug substance appears on a list established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) identifying bulk drug substances for which there is a clinical need (the 503B Bulks List) or (2) the drug compounded from the bulk drug substance appears on the drug shortage list in effect under section 506E of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356e) at the time of compounding, distribution, and dispensing.
Section 503B of the FD&C Act directs FDA to establish the 503B Bulks List by: (1) publishing a notice in the
FDA has published a series of
For purposes of section 503B of the FD&C Act,
FDA requested nominations for specific bulk drug substances for the Agency to consider for inclusion on the 503B Bulks List in the
As FDA evaluates bulk drug substances, it intends to publish notices for public comment in the
FDA intends to maintain a list of all bulk drug substances it has evaluated on its website and separately identify bulk drug substances it has placed on the 503B Bulks List and those it has decided not to place on the 503B Bulks List. This list is available at
FDA is evaluating bulk drug substances nominated for the 503B Bulks List on a rolling basis. FDA intends to evaluate and publish in the
As noted above, the 503B Bulks List will include bulk drug substances for which there is a clinical need. The
Both bulk drug substances addressed in this notice, ephedrine sulfate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, are components of FDA-approved drug products. FDA therefore began its evaluation by asking one or both, as applicable, of the following questions:
1. Is there a basis to conclude, for each FDA-approved product that includes the nominated bulk drug substance, that (a) an attribute of the FDA-approved drug product makes it medically unsuitable to treat certain patients for a condition that FDA has identified for evaluation, and (b) the drug product proposed to be compounded is intended to address that attribute?
2. Is there a basis to conclude that the drug product proposed to be compounded must be produced from a bulk drug substance rather than from an FDA-approved drug product?
The reason for question 1 is that unless an attribute of the FDA-approved drug is medically unsuitable for certain patients, and a drug product to be compounded using a bulk drug substance that is a component of the FDA-approved drug is intended to address that attribute, there is no clinical need to compound a drug product using that bulk drug substance. Rather, such compounding would unnecessarily expose patients to the risks associated with drug products that do not meet the standards applicable to FDA-approved drug products for safety, effectiveness, quality, and labeling and would undermine the drug approval process. The reason for question 2 is that to place a bulk drug substance on the 503B Bulks List, FDA must determine that there is a clinical need for outsourcing facilities to compound a drug product
If the answer to both of the above questions is “yes,” there may be a clinical need for outsourcing facilities to compound using the bulk drug substance, and we would evaluate the substance further, applying the factors described below. If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” we generally would not include the bulk drug substance on the 503B Bulks List, because there would not be a basis to conclude that there may be a clinical need to compound drug products using the bulk drug substance instead of administering an FDA-approved drug or compounding starting with an FDA-approved drug product. FDA did not answer “yes” to both of the threshold questions for the two bulk drug substances that are components of FDA-approved drug products that we are addressing in this notice. Accordingly, as explained below, we did not proceed further in our evaluation of these substances and have decided not to include them on the 503B Bulks List.
The two bulk drug substances that FDA has evaluated, proposed not to include on the 503B Bulks List in a
In September 2019, the Agency issued a
In March 2021, the Agency issued a
Because both ephedrine sulfate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate are components of FDA-approved drug products, FDA considered one or both of the following questions: (1) is there a basis to conclude that an attribute of each FDA-approved drug product containing the bulk drug substance makes each one medically unsuitable to treat certain patients for a condition that FDA has identified for evaluation, and the drug product(s) proposed to be compounded is intended to address that attribute in each FDA-approved drug product and (2) is there a basis to conclude that the drug product(s) proposed to be compounded must be compounded using a bulk drug substance. FDA considered comments to the docket submitted within the public comment period, but as explained below, none of the comments received on these bulk drug substances provided information that led FDA to change its determination.
Ephedrine sulfate was nominated for inclusion on the 503B Bulks List to compound drug products to treat acute bronchospasm, drug induced hypotension due to anesthesia, and nasal congestion.
As noted above, ephedrine sulfate is a component of FDA-approved drug products (
In its proposal to not include ephedrine sulfate on the 503B Bulks List, FDA explained that the nominations did not identify an attribute of the FDA-approved drug products that make them medically unsuitable to treat certain patients and that the proposed compounded drug products are intended to address. Several comments received agreed with FDA's proposal not to include ephedrine sulfate on the 503B Bulks List.
The nominations do not provide support for the position that drug products containing ephedrine sulfate must be compounded from bulk drug substances rather than the approved drug product. No further information was supplied during the comment period that supports the need for compounding ephedrine sulfate drug products from bulk drug substances. Because there is no basis to conclude that an attribute of the FDA-approved ephedrine sulfate products makes them medically unsuitable for some patients; however, FDA has not considered whether there is a basis to conclude that the proposed compounded products must be made from a bulk drug substance rather than from an FDA-approved product.
Hydroxychloroquine sulfate was nominated for inclusion on the 503B Bulks List to compound drug products to treat rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile arthritis (also known as juvenile idiopathic arthritis).
FDA-approved hydroxychloroquine sulfate is available as 200 mg (equivalent to 155 mg of hydroxychloroquine base), film-coated tablets for oral administration.
As described in FDA's preliminary
The nomination further states that “pediatric dosing is not standardized but weight-based, making getting the correct dose difficult with tablets.” We agree that an oral suspension could allow for more flexible dosing when compared to the approved tablets when following weight-based dosing recommendations, and that this also supports the proposition that the approved product may be unsuitable for certain patients.
In addition to the proposed suspension, the nomination also proposes that there is a clinical need to compound hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 to 500 mg capsules for oral administration. The nomination does not explain how the proposed compounded capsule products are intended to address the medical unsuitability of the approved product. Similar to tablets, capsules are less flexible in dosing and would be difficult for patients to take if they are unable to swallow tablets. In addition, the nomination does not identify any data or information as to the need for compounded products with a higher concentration than the approved product. No further information was supplied on this point during the comment period.
The nomination also claims that some patients are “unable to tolerate excipients” in the approved product, but the nomination does not identify which excipients they are referring to, nor do they provide any data or information supporting how the proposed drug products will address that particular attribute. No further information was supplied on this point during the comment period.
Because there is a basis to conclude that an attribute of the approved hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets makes them medically unsuitable for some patients, and the proposed compounded oral suspension is intended to address that attribute, FDA
As described in FDA's preliminary
One commenter supported FDA's proposal not to include hydroxychloroquine sulfate on the 503B Bulks List. Commenters provided no new information supporting the clinical need for compounding from the bulk drug substance hydroxychloroquine sulfate. Because we do not find a basis to conclude that a bulk drug substance is needed to compound the proposed compounded hydroxychloroquine sulfate oral suspension, rather than starting with the FDA-approved product, we do not find a clinical need to include hydroxychloroquine sulfate on the 503B Bulks List under question 2.
Commenters expressed concern that nominations submitted before FDA issued the Clinical Need Guidance in March 2019 are disadvantaged in demonstrating clinical need because the nominators might not have fully understood FDA's thinking on clinical need when they submitted their nominations.
FDA disagrees with these comments. First, as explained in section II.B of this notice, FDA is evaluating bulk drug substances nominated for inclusion on the 503B Bulks List under the “clinical need” standard provided by the FD&C Act, as amended by the Drug Quality and Security Act in 2013.
Another issue raised was whether FDA is regulating and interfering with the practice of medicine by not placing bulk drug substances on the 503B Bulks List despite some physicians wanting to prescribe drug products compounded from those bulk drug substances. FDA disagrees with these comments. The Agency's evaluation under the clinical need standard only regulates the ability of certain compounded drug products to reach the market and is well within the Agency's authorities.
Another concern was the possibility that FDA is promoting the off-label use of FDA-approved drug products. FDA disagrees that it is promoting the off-label use of FDA-approved drug products. In performing the clinical need evaluation, FDA asks a limited, threshold question to determine whether there might be a clinical need for a compounded drug product, by asking what attributes of the approved drug product the proposed compounded drug product would change and why. Asking this question helps ensure that if a bulk drug substance is included on the 503B Bulks List, it is to compound drug products that include a needed change to an approved drug product, rather than to compound drug products without such a change. We do not suggest that the approved drug product or products prepared from it are approved for the use proposed by the nomination being evaluated.
Regarding FDA's decision to evaluate clinical need in the context of the specific drug products proposed to be compounded in the nomination, a concern was raised that requiring nominators to provide information on specific drug products is unnecessary to determine whether there is a clinical need for the bulk drug substance and that FDA should not evaluate bulk drug substances in the context of finished dosage forms for drug products. FDA disagrees with these comments. As explained in section I of this notice, section 503B of the FD&C Act limits the bulk drug substances that outsourcing facilities can use in compounding to those that are used to compound drugs in shortage or that appear on a list developed by FDA of bulk drug substances for which there is a clinical need.
Finally, changes to the Interim Policy were requested. These comments are outside the scope of FDA's bulk drug substance evaluations and decisions that are the subject of this notice. FDA welcomes public comments on its guidance documents that address human drug compounding. Comments on the Interim Policy may be submitted to the docket for the guidance, Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3539, at any time at
For the reasons stated above, we find that there is no clinical need for outsourcing facilities to compound using the bulk drug substances ephedrine sulfate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, and therefore we are not including these bulk drug substances on the 503B Bulks List.
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
*1. FDA Memorandum to File, “Clinical Need for Ephedrine Sulfate in Compounding Under Section 503B of the FD&C Act,” March 2021.
*2. FDA Memorandum to File, “Clinical Need Supplemental Memorandum for Ephedrine Sulfate in Compounding Under Section 503B of the FD&C Act,” August 2023.
*3. FDA Memorandum to File, “Clinical Need for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate in Compounding Under Section 503B of the FD&C Act,” March 2021.
4. McHenry, A.R., M.F. Wempe, and P.J. Rice, (2017) “Stability of Extemporaneously Prepared Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate 25-mg/mL Suspensions in Plastic Bottles and Syringes,”
5. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists (ASHP 2020), “Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate Suspension 25 mg/mL.” Retrieved from
6. USP 2020, “USP Draft Compounded Preparation Monograph for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate Compounded Oral Suspension.” Published for public comment in
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice entitled “Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority” that appeared in the
Denise Huttenlocker, Associate Director for Management, Office of Management, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-743- 1760.
In the
1. On page 55053, in the second column, in the
2. On page 55053, in the third column, in section III., remove the first sentence and add in its place, “After completion of the necessary requirements for implementation, this reorganization will be reflected in FDA's Staff Manual Guide (SMG).”
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of supplemental award.
HRSA is providing approximately $600,000 in supplemental award funds in federal fiscal year 2023 to the recipient of the Family Engagement and Leadership in Systems of Care award to support technical assistance and provide subawards to Family-to-Family Health Information Centers (F2F HIC) to support Medicaid redetermination education, guidance, and support to children with special health care needs and their families, particularly those receiving services through Medicaid Home and Community Based Services waivers.
Jessica Teel, Senior Public Health Analyst, Integrated Services Branch, Division of Services for Children with Special Health Needs, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as a virtual meeting. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meetings. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
A portion of the National Cancer Advisory Board meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of research scientist qualifications and the overall competence of those investigators to conduct research, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In addition, the grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: NCAB:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public, as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend in-person or view the virtual meeting and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Dr. Gillian Acca via email at
A portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Closed: 10:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
Open: 12:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to Dr. Gillian Acca via email at
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 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 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The cooperative agreement applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the cooperative agreement applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of inquiry; request for comments
We, the Coast Guard, have received requests to remove a vessel traffic routing measure, which is known as the “Smith Point Traffic Separation Scheme” (TSS) and depicted on the nautical charts of the Chesapeake Bay. If there is no longer a need for this measure, we would request that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which produces the nation's nautical charts, remove the TSS from these charts and take out language regarding the TSS from the applicable Coast Pilot. We would then make conforming changes to the buoy that marks the turning point in the separation zone of the TSS. We are seeking comments on whether there is any continued need for this vessel traffic routing measure before we do so.
Your comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 20, 2023.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2023-0330 using the Federal portal at
If you have questions about this notice of inquiry, call or email, LTJG Carmel McAndrews, District Prevention Waterways Management Office, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone: 757-398-6298 or email at
The Smith Point TSS was put in place in 1969, before the promulgation of any regulations governing formal Traffic Separation Schemes. It was never formally established by rule and exists only as a notation on the nautical charts. Lying at the mouth of the Potomac River, in the Chesapeake Bay, just south of the border between Maryland and Virginia, it has historically been used by vessel traffic that transits to and from destinations within the Lower Chesapeake Bay, the Potomac River, and the Upper Chesapeake Bay. In contrast to Offshore TSS's, which are codified in 33 CFR part 167, and which are the only TSS's that have been established by rule to date, the Smith Point TSS lies in the inland waters, as defined in 33 CFR 2.26.
See Figure 1, contained in a “Figures” document separate from this Notice of Inquiry, for a graphical depiction of the Smith Point TSS. For instructions on locating the “Figures” document, see the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
As nearby ports and indeed the maritime industry itself have grown over the fifty years since the Smith Point TSS was first charted, traffic patterns, traffic density, and vessel sizes have all changed considerably. Meanwhile, both the development and growth of the port community, and the growth in the size of the ships navigating these waters, appear to have rendered the Smith Point TSS obsolete. With the advent of the Global Positioning System, Automatic Identification System and overall improved navigation technology since
Due to the increase in size and draft of typical cargo vessels since the Smith Point TSS was first identified on the charts in 1969, depths in the north-bound and south-bound vessel traffic lanes are inadequate for modern deep draft vessels transiting through this area and today's larger vessels can no longer use the routing measure as designed. The natural bottom contours of the Bay provide the greatest depths in the center of the southbound lane of the TSS. See Figures 2 & 3 in the Figures document in the docket. And while the Inland Navigational Rules (eCFR, 2023) provide that a vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes, larger inbound vessels must use the opposing outbound lane of the Smith Point TSS to avoid the risk of grounding. This scenario leads to a traffic pattern contrary to the charted routing measure and not in accordance with Rule 10 of the Inland Rules, which may actually increase the risk of collisions. As the Smith Point TSS appears to be counterproductive today, we are seeking public comments regarding its continued need.
If after consideration of the comments received we determine that the Smith Point TSS should be removed from nautical charts and publications, we will then reestablish the current Smith Point Fairway Lighted Buoy SP (LLNR 7490), which marks the turning point of the TSS separation zone, as the Smith Point Lighted Buoy SP, a white and red striped Safe Water Buoy. The light will change from yellow to white with Morse Code “A” flash characteristic. We also seek public comment from waterway users on the Coast Guard's plan to change the signal and meaning of this buoy.
If you believe there is some reason the Smith Point TSS should be retained, please let us know that and provide us with your reasoning for wanting to keep it in place. Please include comments regarding the potential impacts of this possible change and any other concerns that you may have regarding the Smith Point TSS.
We encourage you to submit comments in response to this notification of inquiry through the Federal Decision Making portal at
To view documents mentioned in this notification of inquiry as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
We do not plan to hold a public meeting to receive oral comments on this notification of inquiry; however, should the need arise, we will announce the date, time, and location in a separate document published in the
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is suspending certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Ukraine, regardless of country of birth (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine), and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current armed conflict in Ukraine. The Secretary is taking action to provide relief to these Ukrainian students who are in lawful F-1 nonimmigrant student status, so the students may request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain their F-1 nonimmigrant student status. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student granted employment authorization by means of this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study” for the duration of the employment authorization, if the nonimmigrant student satisfies the minimum course load requirement described in this notice.
This action is effective October 20, 2023, through April 19, 2025.
Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Policy and Response Unit, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, MS 5600, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536-5600. email:
The Secretary is exercising authority under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9) to temporarily suspend the applicability of certain requirements governing on-campus and off-campus employment for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Ukraine regardless of country of birth (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine), who are present in the United States in lawful F-1 nonimmigrant student status on the date of publication of this notice, and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of current armed conflict in Ukraine. The original notice, which applied to F-1 nonimmigrant students who met certain criteria, including having been lawfully present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status on April 19, 2022, was effective from April 19, 2022, through October 19, 2023.
This notice applies exclusively to F-1 nonimmigrant students who meet all of the following conditions:
(1) Are a citizen of Ukraine regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine);
(2) Were lawfully present in the United States on the date of publication of this notice in F-1 nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i);
(3) Are enrolled in an academic institution that is Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified for enrollment for F-1 nonimmigrant students;
(4) Are currently maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant status; and
(5) Are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current armed conflict in Ukraine.
This notice applies to F-1 nonimmigrant students in an approved private school in kindergarten through grade 12, public school grades 9 through 12, and undergraduate and graduate education. An F-1 nonimmigrant student covered by this notice who transfers to another SEVP-certified academic institution remains eligible for the relief provided by means of this notice.
DHS is taking action to provide relief to Ukrainian F-1 nonimmigrant students experiencing severe economic hardship due to the current armed conflict in Ukraine. Based on its review of country conditions in Ukraine and input received from the U.S. Department of State (DOS), DHS is taking action to allow eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students from Ukraine to request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain F-1 nonimmigrant status.
On February 24, 2022, the Government of the Russian Federation, launched an unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
More than a year later, over 17.7 million people are in need of assistance, and more than 6.2 million refugees, mostly women, children, and elderly people, left Ukraine and were recorded to be residing in cities across Europe and beyond.
The current armed conflict has significantly impacted Ukraine's economic growth and has led to massive fiscal reallocations toward defense funding.
According to the World
In a report titled
Critical infrastructure has been negatively impacted by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
According to research from the Kyiv School of Economics, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused $108.3 billion in damage to the country's infrastructure, with the minimum recovery cost estimated to be well over $180 billion.
Since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the armed conflict has significantly impacted the civilian population.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) stated on February 24, 2023, that the magnitude of the destruction across Ukraine is massive. Thousands of Ukrainians have died, and millions have been forced to flee their homes.
The UNOCHA (OCHA) issued the Humanitarian Needs Overview 2023 report, which reviews the impact of Landmines/Explosive Remnants of War (ERW). The report concluded that an estimated 25 percent of Ukraine's land area has been exposed to armed conflict activity since February 2022. The report also estimated that over 250,000 explosive devices have been removed and destroyed since March 2022, with millions more yet to be removed.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues to place civilians at substantial risk of physical harm, leaving many stranded or unable to flee Ukraine due to rising violence, the damage and destruction of bridges and roads, and lack of resources or information on where to find safety and shelter.
As of August 8, 2023, approximately 2,425 F-1 nonimmigrant students from Ukraine are enrolled at SEVP-certified academic institutions in the United States. Given the extent of the current armed conflict in Ukraine, affected students whose primary means of financial support comes from Ukraine may need to be exempt from the normal student employment requirements to continue their studies in the United States. The current armed conflict has made it unfeasible for many students to safely return to Ukraine for the foreseeable future. Without employment authorization, these students may lack the means to meet basic living expenses.
Undergraduate F-1 nonimmigrant students who receive on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice must remain registered for a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term. Undergraduate F-1 nonimmigrant students enrolled in a term of different duration must register for at least one half of the credit hours normally required under a “full course of study.”
In addition, an F-1 nonimmigrant student (either undergraduate or graduate) granted on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice may count up to the
Yes. An F-1 nonimmigrant student who is a Ukrainian citizen, regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine), who already has on-campus or off-campus employment authorization and is otherwise eligible may benefit under this notice, which suspends certain regulatory requirements relating to the minimum course load requirement under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i) and certain employment eligibility requirements under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9). Such an eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student may benefit without having to apply for a new Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document (EAD). To benefit from this notice, the F-1 nonimmigrant student must request that their designated school official (DSO) enter the following statement in the remarks field of the student's Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) record, which the student's Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status, will reflect:
Approved for more than 20 hours per week of [DSO must insert “on-campus” or “off-campus,” depending upon the type of employment authorization the student already has] employment authorization and reduced course load under the Special Student Relief authorization from [DSO must insert the beginning date of the notice or the beginning date of the student's employment, whichever date is later] until [DSO must insert either the student's program end date, the current EAD expiration date (if the student is currently authorized for off-campus employment), or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first].
No. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives and comports with the employment authorization permitted under this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”
No. An F-2 spouse or minor child of an F-1 nonimmigrant student is not authorized to work in the United States and, therefore, may not accept employment under the F-2 nonimmigrant status, consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(f)(15)(i).
No. The suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements only applies to certain F-1 nonimmigrant students who meet the following conditions:
(1) Are a citizen of Ukraine regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine);
(2) Were lawfully present in the United States on the date of publication of this notice in F-1 nonimmigrant status, under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i);
(3) Are enrolled in an academic institution that is SEVP-certified for enrollment of F-1 nonimmigrant students;
(4) Are maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant status; and
(5) Are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current armed conflict in Ukraine.
An F-1 nonimmigrant student who does not meet all these requirements is ineligible for the suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements (even if experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current armed conflict in Ukraine).
Yes. This notice applies to such an F-1 nonimmigrant student, but only if the DSO has properly notated the student's SEVIS record, which will then appear on the student's Form I-20. The normal rules for visa issuance remain applicable to a nonimmigrant who needs to apply for a new F-1 visa to continue an educational program in the United States.
Yes. However, this notice does not by itself reduce the required course load for F-1 nonimmigrant students from Ukraine enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 at a private school, or grades 9 through 12 at a public high school. Such students must maintain the minimum number of hours of class
Yes. For an F-1 nonimmigrant student covered in this notice, the Secretary is suspending the applicability of the requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) that limits an F-1 nonimmigrant student's on-campus employment to 20 hours per week while school is in session. An eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student has authorization to work more than 20 hours per week while school is in session if the DSO has entered the following statement in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record, which will be reflected on the student's Form I-20:
Approved for more than 20 hours per week of on-campus employment and reduced course load, under the Special Student Relief authorization from [DSO must insert the beginning date of this notice or the beginning date of the student's employment, whichever date is later] until [DSO must insert the student's program end date or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first].
To obtain on-campus employment authorization, the F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate to the DSO that the employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship directly resulting from the current armed conflict in Ukraine. An F-1 nonimmigrant student authorized by the DSO to engage in on-campus employment by means of this notice does not need to file any applications with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The standard rules permitting full-time employment on-campus when school is not in session or during school vacations apply, as described in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i).
Yes. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives on-campus employment authorization under this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”
For an F-1 nonimmigrant student covered by this notice, as provided under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(A), the Secretary is suspending the following regulatory requirements relating to off-campus employment:
(a) The requirement that a student must have been in F-1 nonimmigrant student status for one full academic year to be eligible for off-campus employment;
(b) The requirement that an F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate that acceptance of employment will not interfere with the student's carrying a full course of study;
(c) The requirement that limits an F-1 nonimmigrant student's employment authorization to no more than 20 hours per week of off-campus employment while the school is in session; and
(d) The requirement that the student demonstrate that employment under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) is unavailable or otherwise insufficient to meet the needs that have arisen as a result of the unforeseen circumstances.
Yes. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives off-campus employment authorization by means of this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”
An F-1 nonimmigrant student must file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with USCIS to apply for off-campus employment authorization based on severe economic hardship directly resulting from the current armed conflict in Ukraine.
(1) This employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship; and
(2) The hardship is a direct result of the current armed conflict in Ukraine.
If the DSO agrees that the F-1 nonimmigrant student is entitled to receive such employment authorization, the DSO must recommend application approval to USCIS by entering the following statement in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record, which will then appear on that student's Form I-20:
Recommended for off-campus employment authorization in excess of 20 hours per week and reduced course load under the Special Student Relief authorization from the date of the USCIS authorization noted on Form I-766 until [DSO must insert the program end date or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first].
The F-1 nonimmigrant student must then file the properly endorsed Form I-20 and Form I-765 according to the instructions for the Form I-765. The F-1 nonimmigrant student may begin working off campus only upon receipt of the EAD from USCIS.
(a) The F-1 nonimmigrant student is in good academic standing and is carrying a “full course of study”
(b) The F-1 nonimmigrant student is a citizen of Ukraine, regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine), and is experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current armed conflict in Ukraine, as documented on the Form I-20;
(c) The F-1 nonimmigrant student has confirmed that the student will comply with the reduced course load requirements of this notice and register for the duration of the authorized employment for a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if at the undergraduate level, or for a minimum of three semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if the student is at the graduate level,
(d) The off-campus employment is necessary to alleviate severe economic hardship to the individual as a direct result of the current armed conflict in Ukraine.
(a) Ensure that the application package includes the following documents:
(1) A completed Form I-765 with all applicable supporting evidence;
(2) The required fee or properly documented fee waiver request as defined in 8 CFR 103.7(c) (Oct. 1, 2020); and
(3) A signed and dated copy of the student's Form I-20 with the appropriate DSO recommendation, as previously described in this notice; and
(b) Send the application in an envelope which is clearly marked on the front of the envelope, bottom right-hand side, with the phrase “SPECIAL STUDENT RELIEF.”
If USCIS approves the student's Form I-765, USCIS will send the student a Form I-766 EAD as evidence of employment authorization. The EAD will contain an expiration date that does not exceed the end of the granted temporary relief.
Yes. An F-1 nonimmigrant student who has not yet applied for TPS or for other relief that reduces the student's course load per term and permits an increased number of work hours per week, such as Special Student Relief,
Under the first option, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may apply for TPS according to the instructions in the USCIS notice designating Ukraine for TPS elsewhere in this issue of the
Under the second option, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may apply for an EAD under Special Student Relief by filing Form I-765 with the location specified in the filing instructions. At the same time, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may file a separate TPS application but must submit the Form I-821 according to the instructions provided in the
The F-1 nonimmigrant student must maintain normal course load requirements for a “full course of study”
There is no further application process with USCIS if a student has been approved for a TPS-related EAD. The F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate and provide documentation to the DSO of the direct economic hardship resulting from the current armed conflict in Ukraine. The DSO will then verify and update the student's record in SEVIS to enable the F-1 nonimmigrant student with TPS to reduce the course load without any further action or application. No other EAD needs to be issued for the F-1 nonimmigrant student to have employment authorization.
Yes. Regulations permit certain students who fall out of F-1 nonimmigrant student status to apply for reinstatement.
This notice grants temporary relief until April 19, 2025,
An F-1 nonimmigrant student seeking off-campus employment authorization due to severe economic hardship resulting from the current armed conflict in Ukraine must demonstrate to the DSO that this employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship. A DSO who agrees that a nonimmigrant student should receive such employment authorization must recommend an application approval to USCIS by entering information in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record. The authority to collect this information is in the SEVIS collection of information currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 1653-0038.
This notice also allows an eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student to request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while the academic institution is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain F-1 nonimmigrant student status.
To apply for employment authorization, certain F-1 nonimmigrant students must complete and submit a currently approved Form I-765 according to the instructions on the form. OMB has previously approved the collection of information contained on the current Form I-765, consistent with the PRA (OMB Control No. 1615-0040). Although there will be a slight increase in the number of Form I-765 filings because of this notice, the number of filings currently contained in the OMB annual inventory for Form I-765 is sufficient to cover the additional filings. Accordingly, there is no further action required under the PRA.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is suspending certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Sudan, regardless of country of birth (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan), and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan. The Secretary is taking action to provide relief to these Sudanese students who are in lawful F-1 nonimmigrant student status, so the students may request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain their F-1 nonimmigrant student status. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student granted employment authorization by means of this notice to
This action is effective October 20, 2023, through April 19, 2025.
Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Policy and Response Unit, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, MS 5600, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536-5600; email:
The Secretary is exercising authority under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9) to temporarily suspend the applicability of certain requirements governing on-campus and off-campus employment for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Sudan regardless of country of birth (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan), who are present in the United States in lawful F-1 nonimmigrant student status on the date of publication of this notice, and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan. The original notice, which suspended certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the crisis at that time is effective from April 19, 2022, through October 19, 2023.
This notice applies exclusively to F-1 nonimmigrant students who meet all of the following conditions:
(1) Are a citizen of Sudan regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan);
(2) Were lawfully present in the United States on the date of publication of this notice in F-1 nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i);
(3) Are enrolled in an academic institution that is Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified for enrollment for F-1 nonimmigrant students;
(4) Are currently maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant status; and
(5) Are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan.
This notice applies to F-1 nonimmigrant students in an approved private school in kindergarten through grade 12, public school grades 9 through 12, and undergraduate and graduate education. An F-1 nonimmigrant student covered by this notice who transfers to another SEVP-certified academic institution remains eligible for the relief provided by means of this notice.
DHS is taking action to provide relief to Sudanese F-1 nonimmigrant students experiencing severe economic hardship due to the current crisis in Sudan. Based on its review of country conditions in Sudan and input received from the U.S. Department of State (DOS), DHS is taking action to allow eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students from Sudan to request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain F-1 nonimmigrant student status.
In August 2019, a transitional government,
In February 2023, the United Nations (UN) Panel of Experts on Sudan reported that Sudan continued to face a political crisis at the national level, with regular demonstrations against the rule of the military.
In April 2023, tensions between General Burhan and General Hemedti led to armed conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF.
Sudan's political stalemate has negatively impacted its economy.
Moreover, continued insecurity, inter-communal violence and rising floods led to price hikes of basic services in Sudan.
•
•
•
•
•
As of March 2023, there were more than 3.8 million Internally Displaced Person(s) (IDPs) in Sudan, and this figure has increased since conflict began in April 2023.
Moreover, the living conditions for IDPs in Sudan remains dire, as many IDPs have been displaced multiple times and have been traumatized, physically abused, injured, or have lost family members, personal belongings, shelters, villages and access to land, water points and firewood collection.
Forced displacement due to conflict is concentrated in Darfur's states, which host 85 percent of Sudan's total IDP population.
The number of food insecure people in Sudan continued to increase in 2022.
Members of vulnerable groups, including women and children, continue to face a range of risks, including gender-based violence (GBV), as well as other human rights abuses.
As of August 8, 2023, approximately 351 F-1 nonimmigrant students from Sudan are enrolled at SEVP-certified academic institutions in the United States. Given the extent of the current crisis in Sudan, affected students whose primary means of financial support comes from Sudan may need to be exempt from the normal student employment requirements to continue their studies in the United States. The current crisis has made it unfeasible for many students to safely return to Sudan for the foreseeable future. Without employment authorization, these students may lack the means to meet basic living expenses.
Undergraduate F-1 nonimmigrant students who receive on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice must remain registered for a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term. Undergraduate F-1 nonimmigrant students enrolled in a term of different duration must register for at least one half of the credit hours normally required under a “full course of study.”
In addition, an F-1 nonimmigrant student (either undergraduate or graduate) granted on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice may count up to the equivalent of one class or three credits per session, term, semester, trimester, or quarter of online or distance education toward satisfying this minimum course load requirement, unless their course of study is in an English language study program.
Yes. An F-1 nonimmigrant student who is a Sudanese citizen, regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan), who already has on-campus or off-campus employment authorization and is otherwise eligible may benefit under this notice, which suspends certain regulatory requirements relating to the minimum course load requirement under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i) and certain employment eligibility requirements under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9). Such an eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student may benefit without having to apply for a new Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document (EAD). To benefit from this notice, the F-1 nonimmigrant student must request that their designated school official (DSO) enter the following statement in the remarks field of the student's Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) record, which the student's Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status, will reflect:
Approved for more than 20 hours per week of [DSO must insert “on-campus” or “off-campus,” depending upon the type of employment authorization the student already has] employment authorization and reduced course load under the Special
No. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives and comports with the employment authorization permitted under this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”
No. An F-2 spouse or minor child of an F-1 nonimmigrant student is not authorized to work in the United States and, therefore, may not accept employment under the F-2 nonimmigrant status, consistent with 8CFR 214.2(f)(15)(i).
No. The suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements only applies to certain F-1 nonimmigrant students who meet the following conditions:
(1) Are a citizen of Sudan regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan);
(2) Were lawfully present in the United States on the date of publication of this notice in F-1 nonimmigrant status, under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i);
(3) Are enrolled in an academic institution that is SEVP-certified for enrollment of F-1 nonimmigrant students;
(4) Are maintaining F-1 nonimmigrant status; and
(5) Are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan.
An F-1 nonimmigrant student who does not meet all these requirements is ineligible for the suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements (even if experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan).
Yes. This notice applies to such an F-1 nonimmigrant student, but only if the DSO has properly notated the student's SEVIS record, which will then appear on the student's Form I-20. The normal rules for visa issuance remain applicable to a nonimmigrant who needs to apply for a new F-1 visa to continue an educational program in the United States.
Yes. However, this notice does not by itself reduce the required course load for F-1 nonimmigrant students from Sudan enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 at a private school, or grades 9 through 12 at a public high school. Such students must maintain the minimum number of hours of class attendance per week prescribed by the academic institution for normal progress toward graduation, as required under 8CFR214.2(f)(6)(i)(E). The suspension of certain regulatory requirements related to employment through this notice is applicable to all eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students regardless of educational level. Eligible F-1 nonimmigrant students from Sudan enrolled in an elementary school, middle school, or high school may benefit from the suspension of the requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) that limits on-campus employment to 20 hours per week while school is in session.
Yes. For an F-1 nonimmigrant student covered in this notice, the Secretary is suspending the applicability of the requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) that limits an F-1 nonimmigrant student's on-campus employment to 20 hours per week while school is in session. An eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student has authorization to work more than 20 hours per week while school is in session if the DSO has entered the following statement in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record, which will be reflected on the student's Form I-20:
Approved for more than 20 hours per week of on-campus employment and reduced course load, under the Special Student Relief authorization from [DSO must insert the beginning date of this notice or the beginning date of the student's employment, whichever date is later] until [DSO must insert the student's program end date or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first].
To obtain on-campus employment authorization, the F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate to the DSO that the employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship directly resulting from the current crisis in Sudan. An F-1 nonimmigrant student authorized by the DSO to engage in on-campus employment by means of this notice does not need to file any applications with U.S. Citizenship and
Yes. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives on-campus employment authorization under this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”
For an F-1 nonimmigrant student covered by this notice, as provided under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(A), the Secretary is suspending the following regulatory requirements relating to off-campus employment:
(a) The requirement that a student must have been in F-1 nonimmigrant student status for one full academic year to be eligible for off-campus employment;
(b) The requirement that an F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate that acceptance of employment will not interfere with the student's carrying a full course of study;
(c) The requirement that limits an F-1 nonimmigrant student's employment authorization to no more than 20 hours per week of off-campus employment while the school is in session; and
(d) The requirement that the student demonstrate that employment under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) is unavailable or otherwise insufficient to meet the needs that have arisen as a result of the unforeseen circumstances.
Yes. DHS will deem an F-1 nonimmigrant student who receives off-campus employment authorization by means of this notice to be engaged in a “full course of study”
An F-1 nonimmigrant student must file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with USCIS to apply for off-campus employment authorization based on severe economic hardship directly resulting from the current crisis in Sudan.
(1) This employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship; and
(2) The hardship is a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan.
If the DSO agrees that the F-1 nonimmigrant student is entitled to receive such employment authorization, the DSO must recommend application approval to USCIS by entering the following statement in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record, which will then appear on that student's Form I-20:
Recommended for off-campus employment authorization in excess of 20 hours per week and reduced course load under the Special Student Relief authorization from the date of the USCIS authorization noted on Form I-766 until [DSO must insert the program end date or the end date of this notice, whichever date comes first].
The F-1 nonimmigrant student must then file the properly endorsed Form I-20 and Form I-765 according to the instructions for the Form I-765. The F-1 nonimmigrant student may begin working off campus only upon receipt of the EAD from USCIS.
(a) The F-1 nonimmigrant student is in good academic standing and is carrying a “full course of study”
(b) The F-1 nonimmigrant student is a citizen of Sudan, regardless of country of birth (or an individual having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan), and is experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan, as documented on the Form I-20;
(c) The F-1 nonimmigrant student has confirmed that the student will comply
(d) The off-campus employment is necessary to alleviate severe economic hardship to the individual as a direct result of the current crisis in Sudan.
(a) Ensure that the application package includes the following documents:
(1) A completed Form I-765 with all applicable supporting evidence;
(2) The required fee or properly documented fee waiver request as defined in 8 CFR 103.7(c) (Oct. 1, 2020); and
(3) A signed and dated copy of the student's Form I-20 with the appropriate DSO recommendation, as previously described in this notice; and
(b) Send the application in an envelope which is clearly marked on the front of the envelope, bottom right-hand side, with the phrase “SPECIAL STUDENT RELIEF.”
If USCIS approves the student's Form I-765, USCIS will send the student a Form I-766 EAD as evidence of employment authorization. The EAD will contain an expiration date that does not exceed the end of the granted temporary relief.
Yes. An F-1 nonimmigrant student who has not yet applied for TPS or for other relief that reduces the student's course load per term and permits an increased number of work hours per week, such as Special Student Relief,
Under the first option, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may apply for TPS according to the instructions in the USCIS notice designating Sudan for TPS elsewhere in this issue of the
Under the second option, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may apply for an EAD under Special Student Relief by filing Form I-765 with the location specified in the filing instructions. At the same time, the F-1 nonimmigrant student may file a separate TPS application, but must submit the Form I-821 according to the instructions provided in the
The F-1 nonimmigrant student must maintain normal course load requirements for a “full course of study”
There is no further application process with USCIS if a student has been approved for a TPS-related EAD. The F-1 nonimmigrant student must demonstrate and provide documentation to the DSO of the direct economic hardship resulting from the current crisis in Sudan. The DSO will then verify and update the student's record in SEVIS to enable the F-1 nonimmigrant student with TPS to reduce the course load without any further action or application. No other EAD needs to be issued for the F-1 nonimmigrant student to have employment authorization.
Yes. Regulations permit certain students who fall out of F-1 nonimmigrant student status to apply for reinstatement.
This notice grants temporary relief until April 19, 2025,
An F-1 nonimmigrant student seeking off-campus employment authorization due to severe economic hardship resulting from the current crisis in Sudan must demonstrate to the DSO that this employment is necessary to avoid severe economic hardship. A DSO who agrees that a nonimmigrant student should receive such employment authorization must recommend an application approval to USCIS by entering information in the remarks field of the student's SEVIS record. The authority to collect this information is in the SEVIS collection of information currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 1653-0038.
This notice also allows an eligible F-1 nonimmigrant student to request employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while the academic institution is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain F-1 nonimmigrant student status.
To apply for employment authorization, certain F-1 nonimmigrant students must complete and submit a currently approved Form I-765 according to the instructions on the form. OMB has previously approved the collection of information contained on the current Form I-765 under OMB Control Number 1615-0040. Although there will be a slight increase in the number of Form I-765 filings because of this notice, the number of filings currently contained in the OMB annual inventory for Form I-765 is sufficient to cover the additional filings. Accordingly, there is no further action required under the PRA.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) extension and redesignation.
Through this notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, beginning on October 20, 2023, and ending on April 19, 2025. This extension allows existing TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through April 19, 2025, so long as they otherwise continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS. Existing TPS beneficiaries who wish to extend their status through April 19, 2025, must re-register during the 60-day re-registration period described in this notice. The Secretary is also redesignating Sudan for TPS. The redesignation of Sudan allows additional Sudanese nationals (and individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) who have been continuously residing in the United States since August 16, 2023 to apply for TPS for the first time during the initial registration period described under the redesignation information in this notice. In addition to demonstrating continuous residence in the United States since August 16, 2023 and meeting other eligibility criteria, initial applicants for TPS under this designation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since October 20, 2023, the effective date of this redesignation of Sudan for TPS.
• You may contact Rená Cutlip-Mason, Chief, Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, by mail at 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746, or by phone at 800-375-5283.
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the registration process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
• If you have additional questions about TPS, please visit
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases may check Case Status Online, available on the USCIS website at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this notice.
Through this notice, DHS sets forth procedures necessary for nationals of Sudan (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) to (1) re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their EADs with USCIS or (2) submit an initial registration application under the redesignation and apply for an EAD.
Re-registration is limited to individuals who have previously registered for TPS under the prior designation of Sudan and whose applications have been granted. Failure to re-register properly within the 60-day re-registration period may result in the withdrawal of your TPS following appropriate procedures.
For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Sudan's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from August 21, 2023 through October 20, 2023. USCIS will issue new EADs with an April 19, 2025, expiration date to eligible Sudanese TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs. Given the time frames involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants may receive new EADs before their current EADs expire. Accordingly, through this
Individuals who have a Sudan TPS application (Form I-821) and/or Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) that was still pending as of August 21, 2023 do not need to file either application again. If USCIS approves an individual's pending Form I-821, USCIS will grant the individual TPS through April 19, 2025. Similarly, if USCIS approves a pending TPS-related Form I-765, USCIS will issue the individual a new EAD that will be valid through the same date. There are currently approximately 1,200 beneficiaries under Sudan's TPS designation.
Under the redesignation, individuals who currently do not have TPS may submit an initial application during the initial registration period that runs from August 21, 2023 and runs through the full length of the redesignation period ending April 19, 2025. In addition to demonstrating continuous residence in the United States since August 16, 2023 and meeting other eligibility criteria, initial applicants for TPS under this redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since October 20, 2023,
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a foreign state designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible individuals without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated foreign state, regardless of their country of birth.
• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to obtain EADs so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.
• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of DHS discretion.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(1)-(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)-(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a foreign state's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to one of the following:
○ The same immigration status or category that they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status or category has since expired or terminated); or
○ Any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they received while registered for TPS, as long as it is still valid beyond the date TPS terminates.
Sudan was initially designated for TPS on November 4, 1997, on the dual bases of ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions in Sudan that prevented nationals of Sudan from safely returning.
The termination of Sudan's TPS designation has been challenged in several lawsuits, and court orders require DHS to continue TPS for Sudan temporarily pending further court order.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether they continue to meet the conditions for the TPS designation.
In addition to extending an existing TPS designation, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, may redesignate a country (or part thereof) for TPS.
When the Secretary designates or redesignates a country for TPS, the Secretary also has the discretion to establish the date from which TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have been “continuously resid[ing]” in the United States.
DHS has reviewed country conditions in Sudan. Based on the review, including input received from DOS and other U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that an 18-month TPS extension is warranted because extraordinary and temporary conditions supporting Sudan's TPS designation remain. The Secretary has further determined that redesignating Sudan for TPS under INA section 244(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(A) and INA section 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C) due to the ongoing armed conflict and continuing extraordinary and temporary conditions is warranted. The Secretary is accordingly updating the “continuous residence” and “continuous physical presence” dates that applicants must meet to be eligible for TPS.
Sudan is enduring an ongoing armed conflict and a humanitarian crisis in which millions of individuals are exposed to violence, illness, and forced displacement. On April 15, 2023, violent armed conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)
This recent armed conflict stems from events occurring in April 2019 when, after 30 years in power, Sudan's then-President Omar al-Bashir was removed from office.
The armed conflict that erupted on April 15, 2023, started in the capital, Khartoum, but has spread across Sudan.
Due to the outbreak of fighting, foreign governments evacuated thousands of diplomats and private citizens.
“Even before the current fighting began, humanitarian needs across Sudan had reached record levels, with 15.8 million people—about a third of the total population—requiring humanitarian assistance this year [2023].
Prior to the recent conflict, there were 3.8 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Sudan, and this figure has increased since the conflict began in April 2023.
Based upon this review and after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:
• The conditions supporting Sudan's designation for TPS continue to be met.
• There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in Sudan that prevent Sudanese nationals (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) from returning to Sudan in safety, and it is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit Sudanese TPS beneficiaries to remain in the United States temporarily.
• There is an ongoing armed conflict in Sudan and, due to such conflict, requiring the return to Sudan of Sudanese nationals (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) would pose a serious threat to their personal safety.
• The designation of Sudan for TPS should be extended for an 18-month period, beginning on October 20, 2023, and ending on April 19, 2025.
• Due to the conditions described above, Sudan should be simultaneously extended and redesignated for TPS beginning on October 20, 2023, and ending on April 19, 2025.
• For the redesignation, the Secretary has determined that TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have continuously resided in the United States since August 16, 2023.
• Initial TPS applicants under the redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since October 20, 2023, the effective date of the redesignation of Sudan for TPS.
• There are approximately 1,200 current Sudan TPS beneficiaries who are eligible to re-register for TPS under the extension.
• It is estimated that approximately 2,750 additional individuals may be eligible for TPS under the redesignation of Sudan. This population includes Sudanese nationals in the United States in nonimmigrant status or without immigration status.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the statutory conditions supporting Sudan's designation for TPS on the dual bases of ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions are met and it is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit Sudanese TPS beneficiaries to remain in the United States temporarily.
To register for TPS based on the designation of Sudan, you must submit a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, and pay the filing fee (or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver). You may be required to pay the biometric services fee. If you can demonstrate an inability to pay the biometric services fee, you may request to have the fee waived. Please see additional information under the “Biometric Services Fee” section of this notice.
TPS beneficiaries are eligible for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which proves their authorization to work in the United States. You are not required to submit Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, or have an EAD to be granted TPS, but see below for more information if you want an EAD to use as proof that you can work in the United States.
Individuals who have a Sudan TPS application (Form I-821) that was still pending as of August 21, 2023 do not need to file the application again. If USCIS approves an individual's Form I-
For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
Everyone must provide their employer with documentation showing that they have the legal right to work in the United States. TPS beneficiaries are eligible to obtain an EAD, which proves their legal right to work. Those who want to obtain an EAD must file a Form I-765 and pay the Form I-765 fee (or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver). TPS applicants may file this form along with their TPS application, or at a later date, provided their TPS application is still pending or has been approved. Beneficiaries with a Sudanese TPS-related Form I-765 that was still pending as of August 21, 2023 do not need to file the application again. If USCIS approves a pending TPS-related Form I-765, USCIS will issue the individual a new EAD that will be valid through April 19, 2025.
If USCIS denies your fee waiver request, you can resubmit your TPS application. The fee waiver denial notice will contain specific instructions about resubmitting your application.
USCIS offers the option to applicants for TPS under Sudan's designation to file Form I-821 and related requests for EADs online or by mail. However, if you request a fee waiver, you must submit your application by mail. When filing a TPS application, applicants can also request an EAD by submitting a completed Form I-765, with their Form I-821.
Mail your completed Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status; Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, if applicable; Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver (if applicable); and supporting documentation to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an immigration judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD, please file online or mail your Form I-765 application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. If filing online, please include the fee. If filing by mail, please include the fee or fee waiver request. When you are requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will help us verify your grant of TPS and process your application.
The filing instructions on the Form I-821 list all the documents needed to establish eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying (
TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion. You must file for travel authorization if you wish to travel outside of the United States. If granted, travel authorization gives you permission to leave the United States and return during a specific period. To request travel authorization, you must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, available at
• Select Item Number 1.d. in Part 2 on the Form I-131; and
• Submit the fee for Form I-131, or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver.
If you are filing Form I-131 together with Form I-821, send your forms to the address listed in Table 1. If you are filing Form I-131 separately based on a pending or approved Form I-821, send your form to the address listed in Table 2 and include a copy of Form I-797 for the approved or pending Form I-821.
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years of age and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay the biometric services fee, you may request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
To get case status information about your TPS application, as well as the status of your TPS-based EAD request, you can check Case Status Online at
Yes. Regardless of your country of birth, provided that you currently have a Sudan TPS-based EAD that has the notation A-12 or C-19 under Category and a “Card Expires” date of October 19, 2023, this
You can find the Lists of Acceptable Documents on Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, as well as the Acceptable Documents web page at
You may present any document from List A (which provides evidence of both identity and employment authorization) or one document from List B (which provides evidence of your identity) together with one document from List C (which provides evidence of employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date. You can find additional information about Form I-9 on the I-9 Central web page at
Even though we have automatically extended your EAD, your employer is required by law to ask you about your continued employment authorization. Your employer may need to re-examine your automatically extended EAD to check the “Card Expires” date and Category code if your employer did not keep a copy of your EAD when you initially presented it. Once your employer has reviewed the Card Expiration date and Category code, your employer should update the EAD expiration date in Section 2 of Form I-9. See the section “What updates should my current employer make to Form I-9 if my EAD has been automatically extended?” of this
Your employer may not specify which List A or List C document you must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.
Yes, if you are eligible for TPS, you can obtain a new TPS-based EAD, regardless of whether you have an EAD or work authorization based on another immigration status. If you want to obtain a new TPS-based EAD valid through April 19, 2025, then you must file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and pay the associated fee (unless USCIS grants your fee waiver request).
No. When completing Form I-9, employers must accept any documentation you choose to present from the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request proof of Sudanese citizenship or proof of registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If you present an EAD that USCIS has automatically extended, employers should accept it as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to you. Refer to the “Note to Employees” section of this
When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Form I-9 for a new job before October 20, 2024:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “A noncitizen authorized to work until” and enter October 19, 2024, as the “expiration date”; and
b. Enter your USCIS number or A-Number where indicated. (Your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix.)
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended by ensuring it is in category A-12 or C-19 and has a “Card Expires” date of October 19, 2023;
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Write October 19, 2024, as the expiration date.
Before the start of work on October 20, 2024, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization on Form I-9.
If you presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and USCIS has now automatically extended your EAD, your employer may need to re-examine your current EAD if they do not have a copy of the EAD on file. Your employer should determine if your EAD is automatically extended by ensuring that it contains Category A-12 or C-19 and has a “Card Expires” date of October 19, 2023. Your employer may not rely on the country of birth listed on the card to determine whether you are eligible for this extension.
If your employer determines that USCIS has automatically extended your EAD, your employer should update Section 2 of your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:
1. Write EAD EXT and October 19, 2024, as the last day of the automatic extension in the Additional Information field; and
2. Initial and date the correction.
This is not considered a reverification. Employers do not reverify the employee until either the automatic extension has ended, or the employee presents a new document to show continued employment authorization, whichever is sooner. By October 20, 2024, when the employee's automatically extended EAD has expired, employers are required by law to reverify the employee's employment authorization on Form I-9.
Employers may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee by entering the number from the Document Number field on Form I-9 into the document number field in E-Verify. Employers should enter October 19, 2024, as the expiration date for an EAD that has been extended under this
E-Verify automated the verification process for TPS-related EADs that are automatically extended. If you have employees who provided a TPS-related EAD when they first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. Before this employee starts work on October 20, 2024, you must reverify their employment authorization on Form I-9. Employers may not use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Form I-9 completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (mismatch) must promptly inform employees of the mismatch and give such employees an opportunity to take action to resolve the mismatch. A mismatch means that the information entered into E-Verify from Form I-9 differs from records available to DHS.
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold or lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee because of a mismatch while the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot confirm an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify-related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Form I-9 and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER website at
For Federal purposes, if you present an automatically extended EAD referenced in this
• Your current EAD with a TPS category code of A-12 or C-19, even if your country of birth noted on the EAD does not reflect the TPS designated country of Sudan;
• Your Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record;
• Your Form I-797, Notice of Action, reflecting approval of your Form I-765; or
• Form I-797 or Form I-797C, Notice of Action, reflecting approval or receipt of a past or current Form I-821, if you received one from USCIS.
While SAVE can verify that an individual has TPS, each agency's procedures govern whether they will accept an unexpired EAD, Form I-797, Form I-797C, or Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record. If an agency accepts the type of TPS-related document you present, such as an EAD, the agency should accept your automatically extended EAD, regardless of the country of birth listed on the EAD. It may assist the agency if you:
a. Give the agency a copy of the relevant
b. Explain that SAVE will be able to verify the continuation of your TPS using this information; and
c. Ask the agency to initiate a SAVE query with your information and follow through with additional verification steps, if necessary, to get a final SAVE response verifying your TPS.
You can also ask the agency to look for SAVE notices or contact SAVE if they have any questions about your immigration status or automatic extension of TPS-related documentation. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but occasionally verification can be delayed.
You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) extension and redesignation.
Through this notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of Ukraine for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, beginning on October 20, 2023, and ending on April 19, 2025. This extension allows existing TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through April 19, 2025, so long as they otherwise continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS. Existing TPS beneficiaries who wish to extend their status through April 19, 2025, must re-register during the 60-day re-registration period described in this notice. The Secretary is also redesignating Ukraine for TPS. The redesignation of Ukraine allows additional Ukrainian nationals (and individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine) who have been continuously residing in the United States since August 16, 2023, to apply for TPS for the first time during the initial registration period described under the redesignation information in this notice. In addition to demonstrating continuous residence in the United States since August 16, 2023, and meeting other eligibility criteria, initial applicants for TPS under this designation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since October 20, 2023, the effective date of this redesignation of Ukraine for TPS.
• You may contact Rená Cutlip-Mason, Chief, Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, by mail at 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746, or by phone at 800-375-5283.
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the registration process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
• If you have additional questions about TPS, please visit
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases may check Case Status Online, available on the USCIS website at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this notice.
BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
DHS—U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOS—U.S. Department of State
EAD—Employment Authorization Document
FNC—Final Nonconfirmation
Form I-131—Application for Travel Document
Form I-765—Application for Employment Authorization
Form I-797—Notice of Action
Form I-821—Application for Temporary Protected Status
Form I-9—Employment Eligibility Verification
Form I-912—Request for Fee Waiver
Form I-94—Arrival/Departure Record
FR—Federal Register
Government—U.S. Government
IER—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section
IJ—Immigration Judge
INA—Immigration and Nationality Act
SAVE—USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program
Secretary—Secretary of Homeland Security
TPS—Temporary Protected Status
TTY—Text Telephone
USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S.C.—United States Code
Through this notice, DHS sets forth procedures necessary for nationals of Ukraine (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine) to (1) re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their EADs with USCIS or (2) submit an initial registration application under the redesignation and apply for an EAD.
Re-registration is limited to individuals who have previously registered for TPS under the prior designation of Ukraine and whose applications have been granted. Failure to re-register properly within the 60-day re-registration period may result in the withdrawal of your TPS following appropriate procedures.
For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Ukraine's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from August 21, 2023 through October 20, 2023. USCIS will issue new EADs with an April 19, 2025, expiration date to eligible Ukrainian TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs. Given the time frames involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants may receive new EADs before their current EADs expire. Accordingly, through this
Individuals who have a Ukraine TPS application (Form I-821) and/or Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) that was still pending as of August 21, 2023 do not need to file either application again. If USCIS approves an individual's pending Form I-821, USCIS will grant the individual TPS through April 19, 2025. Similarly, if USCIS approves a pending TPS-related Form I-765, USCIS will issue the individual a new EAD that will be valid through the same date. There are currently approximately 26,000 beneficiaries under Ukraine's TPS designation.
Under the redesignation, individuals who currently do not have TPS may submit an initial application during the initial registration period that runs from August 21, 2023 and runs through the full length of the redesignation period ending April 19, 2025. In addition to demonstrating continuous residence in the United States since August 16, 2023, and meeting other eligibility criteria, initial applicants for TPS under this redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since October 20, 2023,
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a foreign state designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible individuals without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated foreign state, regardless of their country of birth.
• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to obtain EADs so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.
• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of DHS discretion.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(1)-(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)-(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a foreign state's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to one of the following:
○ The same immigration status or category that they maintained before
○ Any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they received while registered for TPS, as long as it is still valid beyond the date TPS terminates.
Ukraine was initially designated on the basis of an ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions in Ukraine that prevented nationals of Ukraine from returning in safety.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether they continue to meet the conditions for the TPS designation.
In addition to extending an existing TPS designation, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, may redesignate a country (or part thereof) for TPS.
When the Secretary designates or redesignates a country for TPS, the Secretary also has the discretion to establish the date from which TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have been “continuously resid[ing]” in the United States.
DHS has reviewed country conditions in Ukraine. Based on the review, including input received from DOS and other U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that an 18-month TPS extension is warranted because ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions supporting Ukraine's TPS designation remain. The Secretary has further determined that redesignating Ukraine for TPS under INA section 244(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C) is warranted and is changing the “continuous residence” and “continuous physical presence” dates that applicants must meet to be eligible for TPS.
On February 24, 2022, Russia massively expanded its unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine, marking the largest conventional military action in Europe since World War II.
Russia's expanded military invasion of Ukraine has placed civilians at significant risk of physical harm throughout the country and caused vast harm to infrastructure.
Loss of life, injuries, lack of access to healthcare, displacement, and damaged infrastructure as a result of the ongoing war in Ukraine have created a humanitarian crisis and has had a severe impact, with millions of Ukrainians requiring humanitarian assistance.
In March 2022, the U.S. government assessed that members of Russia's forces committed war crimes in Ukraine. In February 2023, the Secretary of State determined that members of Russia's forces and other Russian officials had committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
Loss of life, injuries, lack of access to healthcare, displacement, and damaged infrastructure as a result of the ongoing war in Ukraine have created a humanitarian crisis and have had a severe impact, with millions of Ukrainians requiring humanitarian assistance.
Based upon this review and after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:
• The conditions supporting Ukraine's designation for TPS continue to be met.
• There continues to be an ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine and, due to such conflict, requiring the return to Ukraine of Ukrainian nationals (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine) would pose a serious threat to their personal safety.
• There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in Ukraine that prevent Ukrainian nationals (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Ukraine) from returning to Ukraine in safety, and it is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit Ukrainian TPS beneficiaries to remain in the United States temporarily.
• The designation of Ukraine for TPS should be extended for an 18-month period, beginning on October 20, 2023 and ending on April 19, 2025.
• Due to the conditions described above, Ukraine should be simultaneously extended and redesignated for TPS beginning on October 20, 2023 and ending on April 19, 2025.
• For the redesignation, the Secretary has determined that TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have continuously resided in the United States since August 16, 2023.
• Initial TPS applicants under the redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since October 20, 2023, the effective date of the redesignation of Ukraine for TPS.
• There are approximately 26,000 current Ukraine TPS beneficiaries who are eligible to re-register for TPS under the extension.
• It is estimated that approximately 166,700 additional individuals may be eligible for TPS under the redesignation of Ukraine. This population includes Ukrainian nationals in the United States in nonimmigrant status or without immigration status.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the statutory conditions supporting Ukraine's designation for TPS on the basis of an ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions are met and that designating Ukraine for TPS is not contrary to the national interest of the United States.
To register initially for TPS based on the designation of Ukraine, you must submit a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, and pay the filing fee (or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver). You may be required to pay the biometric services fee. If you can demonstrate an inability to pay the biometric services fee, you may request to have the fee waived.
TPS beneficiaries are eligible for an EAD, which proves their authorization to work in the United States. You are not required to submit Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, or have an EAD to be granted TPS, but see below for more information if you want an EAD to use as proof that you can work in the United States.
Individuals who have a Ukraine TPS application (Form I-821) that was still pending as of August 21, 2023 do not need to file the application again. If USCIS approves an individual's Form I-821, USCIS will grant the individual TPS through April 19, 2025.
For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
Everyone must provide their employer with documentation showing that they have the legal right to work in the United States. TPS beneficiaries are eligible to obtain an EAD, which proves their legal right to work. Those who want to obtain an EAD must file a Form I-765 and pay the Form I-765 fee (or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver). TPS applicants may file this form along with their TPS application, or at a later date, provided their TPS application is still pending or has been approved. Beneficiaries with a Ukrainian TPS-related Form I-765 that was still pending as of August 21, 2023 do not need to file the application again. If USCIS approves a pending TPS-related Form I-765, USCIS will issue the individual a new EAD that will be valid through April 19, 2025.
If USCIS denies your fee waiver request, you can resubmit your TPS application. The fee waiver denial notice will contain specific instructions about resubmitting your application.
USCIS offers the option to applicants for TPS under Ukraine's designation to file Form I-821 and related requests for EADs online or by mail. When filing a TPS application, applicants can also request an EAD by submitting a completed Form I-765, with their Form I-821.
Mail your completed Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status; Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, if applicable; Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver (if applicable); and supporting documentation to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an immigration judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD, please file online or mail your Form I-765 application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1 regardless of whether you are requesting a fee waiver. If filing online, please include the fee. If filing by mail, please include the fee or fee waiver request. When you are requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will help us verify your grant of TPS and process your application.
The filing instructions on the Form I-821 list all the documents needed to establish eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying (
TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion. You must file for travel authorization if you wish to travel outside of the United States. If granted, travel authorization gives you permission to leave the United States and return during a specific period. To request travel authorization, you must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, available at
• Select Item Number 1.d. in Part 2 on the Form I-131; and
• Submit the fee for Form I-131, or request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver.
If you are filing Form I-131 together with Form I-821, send your forms to the address listed in Table 1. If you are filing Form I-131 separately based on a pending or approved Form I-821, send your form to the address listed in Table 2 and include a copy of Form I-797 for the approved or pending Form I-821.
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years of age and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay the biometric services fee, you may request a fee waiver, which you may submit on Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
To get case status information about your TPS application, as well as the status of your TPS-based EAD request, you can check Case Status Online at
Yes. Regardless of your country of birth, provided that you currently have a Ukraine TPS-based EAD that has the notation A-12 or C-19 under Category and a “Card Expires” date of October 19, 2023, this
You can find the Lists of Acceptable Documents on Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, as well as the Acceptable Documents web page at
You may present any document from List A (which provides evidence of both identity and employment authorization) or one document from List B (which provides evidence of your identity) together with one document from List C (which provides evidence of employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date. You can find additional information about Form I-9 on the I-9 Central web page at
Even though we have automatically extended your EAD, your employer is required by law to ask you about your continued employment authorization. Your employer may need to re-examine your automatically extended EAD to check the “Card Expires” date and Category code if your employer did not keep a copy of your EAD when you initially presented it. Once your employer has reviewed the Card Expiration date and Category code, your employer should update the EAD expiration date in Section 2 of Form I-
Your employer may not specify which List A or List C document you must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.
Yes, if you are eligible for TPS, you can obtain a new TPS-based EAD, regardless of whether you have an EAD or work authorization based on another immigration status. If you want to obtain a new TPS-based EAD valid through April 19, 2025, then you must file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and pay the associated fee (unless USCIS grants your fee waiver request).
No. When completing Form I-9, employers must accept any documentation you choose to present from the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request proof of Ukrainian citizenship or proof of registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If you present an EAD that USCIS has automatically extended, employers should accept it as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to you. Refer to the “Note to Employees” section of this
When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Form I-9 for a new job before October 20, 2024:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “A noncitizen authorized to work until” and enter October 19, 2024, as the “expiration date”; and
b. Enter your USCIS number or A-Number where indicated. (Your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix.)
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended by ensuring it is in category A-12 or C-19 and has a “Card Expires” date of October 19, 2023.
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Write October 19, 2024, as the expiration date.
Before the start of work on October 20, 2024, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization on Form I-9.
If you presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and USCIS has now automatically extended your EAD, your employer may need to re-examine your current EAD if they do not have a copy of the EAD on file. Your employer should determine if your EAD is automatically extended by ensuring that it contains Category A-12 or C-19 and has a “Card Expires” date of October 19, 2023. Your employer may not rely on the country of birth listed on the card to determine whether you are eligible for this extension.
If your employer determines that USCIS has automatically extended your EAD, your employer should update Section 2 of your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:
1. Write EAD EXT and October 19, 2024, as the last day of the automatic extension in the Additional Information field; and
2. Initial and date the correction.
This is not considered a reverification. Employers do not reverify the employee until either the automatic extension has ended, or the employee presents a new document to show continued employment authorization, whichever is sooner. By October 20, 2024, when the employee's automatically extended EAD has expired, employers are required by law to reverify the employee's employment authorization on Form I-9.
Employers may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee by entering the number from the Document Number field on Form I-9 into the document number field in E-Verify. Employers should enter October 19, 2024, as the expiration date for an EAD that has been extended under this
E-Verify automated the verification process for TPS-related EADs that are automatically extended. If you have employees who provided a TPS-related EAD when they first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. Before this employee starts work on October 20, 2024, you must reverify their employment authorization on Form I-9. Employers may not use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Form I-9 completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (mismatch) must promptly inform employees of the mismatch and give such employees an opportunity to take action to resolve the mismatch. A mismatch means that the information entered into E-Verify from Form I-9 differs from records available to DHS.
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold or lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee because of a mismatch while the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot confirm an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify-related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Form I-9 and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER website at
For Federal purposes, if you present an automatically extended EAD referenced in this
• Your current EAD with a TPS category code of A-12 or C-19, even if your country of birth noted on the EAD does not reflect the TPS designated country of Ukraine;
• Your Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record;
• Your Form I-797, Notice of Action, reflecting approval of your Form I-765; or
• Form I-797 or Form I-797C, Notice of Action, reflecting approval or receipt of a past or current Form I-821, if you received one from USCIS.
Check with the government agency requesting documentation regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. Some state and local government agencies use the SAVE program to confirm the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits.
While SAVE can verify that an individual has TPS, each agency's procedures govern whether they will accept an unexpired EAD, Form I-797, Form I-797C, or Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record. If an agency accepts the type of TPS-related document you present, such as an EAD, the agency should accept your automatically extended EAD, regardless of the country of birth listed on the EAD. It may assist the agency if you:
a. Give the agency a copy of the relevant
b. Explain that SAVE will be able to verify the continuation of your TPS using this information; and
c. Ask the agency to initiate a SAVE query with your information and follow through with additional verification steps, if necessary, to get a final SAVE response verifying your TPS.
You can also ask the agency to look for SAVE notices or contact SAVE if they have any questions about your immigration status or automatic extension of TPS-related documentation. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but occasionally verification can be delayed.
You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at
Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice.
Through this notice, HUD is correcting the Estimated Total Funding made available for the Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing through Off-Site Construction and Pro-Housing Reforms Research Grant Program Pre and Full Application Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), from approximately four million dollars to approximately three million dollars; and corrects the funding source appropriation.
Curtissa Coleman, Director, Office of University Partnerships, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington DC; telephone number 202-402-7580 (this is not a toll-free number); email
HUD is publishing a correction to the Estimated Total Funding for the Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing through Off-Site Construction and Pro-Housing Reforms Research Grant Program Pre and Full Application Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) published on June 15, 2023, and closed on August 1, 2023. The correct Estimated Total Funding is $3,000,000; and the correct funding source appropriation is the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328, approved December 29, 2022).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive any written comments on or before September 20, 2023.
Use one of the following methods to request documents or submit comments. Requests and comments should specify the applicant's name and application number (
•
•
Abby Goldstein, 413-253-8212 (phone), or
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species, unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public to comment on the following applications.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review two initial determinations issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a motion of complainant Shoals Technologies Group, LLC (“Shoals Technologies” or “Complainant”) to amend the complaint and notice of investigation (“NOI”) to assert certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,153 (“the '153 patent”) (Order No. 5) and setting a 17-month target date for November 12, 2024 (Order No. 6).
Paul Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2043. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On June 9, 2023, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Shoals Technologies. 88 FR 37905-06 (June 9, 2023). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain photovoltaic connectors and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,553,739 (“the
On June 29, 2023, Complainant filed an unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint and NOI to add allegations of infringement against respondents Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage (collectively, “Voltage”) related to claims 1, 2-3, 6, 8, 11-18, 21, 23, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,153 (“the '153 patent”).
On July 18, 2023, the ALJ issued the first subject ID (Order No. 5), granting Complainant's motion to amend the complaint and NOI as requested. The ID finds that Complainant had established good cause for the proposed amendment pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.14(b)(1)). As the ID explains, Complainant could not have asserted the '153 patent at the time it filed its original Complaint because the '153 patent issued on June 27, 2023, over a month after the original complaint was filed on May 4, 2023.
On July 18, 2023, the ALJ issued the second subject ID (Order No. 6), pursuant to Commission Rule 210.51(a)(1), setting a 17-month target date for completion of the investigation of November 12, 2024 in consideration of “the parties' proposals, the parties' scheduling conflicts, the scope of this investigation, and the [presiding ALJ's] responsibilities in other investigations.” Order No. 6, at 2. The ID further states that the deadline for issuing the final ID is July 12, 2024.
No party filed a petition for review of the subject IDs.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject IDs (Order Nos. 5 and 6). Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14, the Notice of Investigation is amended to include claims 1, 2-3, 6, 8, 11-18, 21, 23, and 24 of the '153 patent. The target date for completion of the investigation is set for November 12, 2024, and the deadline for issuing the final ID is July 12, 2024.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 15, 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.
On August 11, 2023, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Agreed Modification of the Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in the lawsuit entitled
The United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the State of Michigan, on behalf Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, filed suit in 2019 against NCR Corporation (“NCR”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for the recovery of response costs and the performance of response work at the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site in Michigan (the “Site”).
The Agreed Modification concern the provisions of the Original Consent Decree relating to Operable Unit 5, Area 3 (“OU5, Area 3”) of the Site, constituting a portion of the Kalamazoo River. The Original Consent Decree included a template Agreed Modification to amend the Decree to add the OU5, Area 3 Record of Decision and an updated Statement of Work. In May 2022, EPA issued the ROD for OU5, selecting a remedy with a current estimated cost of $34,000,000. This proposed Agreed Modification of the Consent Decree follows the template from the Original Consent Decree and will govern NCR's performance of that work.
Additionally, the Agreed Modification also makes one minor clarifying correction to the Original Consent Decree regarding how NCR should make installment payments to EPA for future response costs, specifying that the payments should go to the Financial Litigation Unit.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Agreed Modification of the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Agreed Modification of the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
We will provide a paper copy of the proposed Agreed Modification of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
Please enclose a check or money order for $57.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) Federal Advisory Committee (GAC) to discuss the Global Initiative, as described at
The meeting will take place on Thursday, September 21, 2023 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. ET, and Friday, September 22, 2023 from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. ET.
This meeting will be held at the Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA), 1015 Half Street SE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20003. Approved observers will receive an invitation and instructions for entering the building.
Mr. David P. Lewis, Global Designated Federal Official (DFO), Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, Washington, DC 20531; Phone (202) 616-7829 [note: this is not a toll-free number]; Email:
This meeting is open to the public, however, members of the public who wish to attend this meeting must register with Mr. David P. Lewis at least (7) days in advance of the meeting. Access to the meeting room will not be allowed without prior authorization. All attendees will be required to sign-in and go through security before they will be admitted to the meeting.
Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. Lewis at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
The GAC will guide and monitor the development of the Global information sharing concept. It will advise the Assistant Attorney General, OJP; the Attorney General; the President (through the Attorney General); and local, state, tribal, and federal policymakers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The GAC will also advocate for strategies for accomplishing a Global information sharing capability.
Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the Global DFO.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NSF Division of Materials Research (DMR) supports a number of National User Facilities that provide specialized capabilities and instrumentation to the scientific community on a competitive proposal basis. In addition to the user program, these facilities support in-house research, development of new instrumentation or techniques, education, and knowledge transfer.
The facilities integrate research and education for students and post-docs involved in experiments, and support extensive K-12 outreach to foster an interest in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and STEM careers. Facilities capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups
National User Facilities will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. User facilities will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via the Research Performance Project Reporting (RPPR) module in
Each facility's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) research, (2) education and training, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) management, and (7) budget issues.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives and metrics for the reporting period, challenges or problems the facility has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
Facilities are required to file a final report through the RPPR. Final reports contain similar information and metrics as annual reports, but are retrospective and focus on the period that was not addressed in previous annual reports.
Weeks of August 21, 28, September 4, 11, 18, 25, 2023. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public and closed.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 21, 2023.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 28, 2023.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 4, 2023.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 18, 2023.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 25, 2023.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft report; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft report on the Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) project; specifically, “Volume 4:
Submit comments by October 20, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Alan Kuritzky, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1552, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0140 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
As directed in SRM-SECY-11-0089, “Options for Proceeding with Future Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Activities,” the staff is conducting a full-scope multi-unit site Level 3 PRA (Level 3 PRA project) that addresses all internal and external hazards; all plant operating modes; and all reactor units, spent fuel pools, and dry cask storage. The reference site for this study contains two four-loop Westinghouse pressurized water reactors with large dry containments. The objectives of the Level 3 PRA project are to (1) develop a Level 3 PRA, generally based on current state-of-practice methods, tools, and data, that (a) reflects technical advances since the last NRC-sponsored Level 3 PRAs (NUREG-1150), which were completed over 30 years ago, and (b) addresses scope considerations that were not previously considered (
The work performed under this project is being documented as a multi-volume report. This second batch of Level 3 PRA project reports describes the analyses and results for the reactor, at-power, Level 1, 2, and 3 PRAs for internal fires, seismic events, and high winds (Volume 4). Each set of Level 3 PRA project reports covering the Level 1, 2, and 3 PRAs for a specific site radiological source, plant operating state, and hazard group (or groups) is accompanied by an overview report. The overview reports summarize the results and insights from all three PRA levels.
The Level 3 PRA project analyses reflect the reference plant as it was designed and operated as of 2012. To provide results and insights better aligned with the current design and operation of the reference plant, the overview reports also provide a reevaluation of the plant risk based on a set of new plant equipment and PRA model assumptions and compare the results of the reevaluation to the original study results. This reevaluation reflects the current reactor coolant pump shutdown seal design at the reference plant, as well as the potential impact of FLEX strategies, both of which reduce the risk to the public.
As documented in Section 2 of the Volume 4 overview report, the results of the original Level 3 PRA project analyses and the reevaluation both show that, when considering all hazards combined for the reactor at power, the combination of this plant design and site location has substantial margin to the quantitative health objectives related to the NRC's safety goal policy, though the margins are noticeably less for the surrogate risk metrics of core damage frequency and large, early release frequency. Even though these margins can vary for other plants due to variations in their design and siting, the estimates derived for the reference
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recent Postal Service filing requesting the addition of a negotiated service agreement with Publisher's Clearing House to the Market Dominant product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On August 11, 2023, the Postal Service filed a request to add a negotiated service agreement (NSA) with Publisher's Clearing House (PCH) to the Market Dominant product list.
• Attachment A—a copy of Governors' Resolution No. 23-5, establishing price and classification changes for Market Dominant products to implement a negotiated service agreement with PCH, which the Postal Service asserts conforms with 39 CFR 3040.131(b);
• Attachment B—a copy of the instant contract, which the Postal Service asserts conforms with 39 CFR 3040.221(b);
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS), which the Postal Service asserts conforms with 39 CFR 3040.131(f);
• Attachment D—a proposed data collection plan, which the Postal Service asserts conforms with 39 CFR 3040.222;
• Attachment E—a statement of supporting justification, which the Postal Service asserts conforms with 39 CFR 3040.132 and 39 CFR 3040.221(f)-(j);
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of “certain data which reflect commercially sensitive aspects of Publisher's Clearing House's business model, response rates, and strategy[,]” (
• Supporting Financial Analysis—an Excel file containing a financial analysis, which the Postal Service asserts conforms with 39 CFR 3040.221(f) and demonstrates that the PCH NSA will improve the net financial position of the Postal Service.
The Postal Service represents that PCH has found that certain dormant prospects (
The parties intend for the PCH NSA to take effect in November or December 2023, assuming favorable review by the Commission.
The contract contains a termination for convenience provision, which allows either party to terminate the NSA without penalty upon 30 days' written notice to the other party, provided that no termination by the Postal Service would be effective during the 15-week period prior to either the initial mailing or the potential subsequent mailing.
• The Postal Service would provide PCH with an initial 1-million-piece mailing priced at the Postal Service's attributable cost, which the Postal Service asserts would result in approximately $128,000 in revenue. To maintain this discount, PCH would need to achieve at least 50 percent of its forecasted total multiplier volume.
• If PCH were to not achieve at least 50 percent of the forecasted multiplier volume, PCH would lose the discount on the initial mailing, which would be paid back to the Postal Service. The Postal Service asserts that this would result in approximately $299,000 in total postage and $171,000 in contribution from the initial mailing, plus however much multiplier percentage PCH were able to achieve.
• If PCH were to achieve 90 percent of more of the multiplier volume, the Postal Service would provide an additional discount to PCH of the price paid for the initial mailing in the form of a postage credit of approximately $128,000.
The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2023-222 and Docket No. R2023-4 for consideration of the Request pertaining to the proposed new product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3622 and 3642, as well as 39 CFR part 3040. Comments are due September 11, 2023. The public portions of the Postal Service's filing are available for review on the Commission's website (
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Stephanie A. Quick to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2023-222 and Docket No. R2023-4 for consideration of the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Stephanie A. Quick is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments are due September 11, 2023.
4. The Commission directs the Secretary of the Commission to arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recently filed Postal Service notice of a Market Dominant price change proposing two incentives, along with proposed classification changes. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On August 11, 2023, the Postal Service filed a notice of a Market Dominant price change proposing two incentives, along with classification changes to the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS).
The Postal Service's filing consists of the Notice, which the Postal Service represents addresses applicable requirements of 39 CFR 3030.122 and 39 CFR 3030.123; one PDF attachment (Attachment A) to the Notice; and three Excel workbooks entitled “Marketing Mail Incentive_Projections.xls,” “First Class Mail Incentive_Projections.xls,” and “CY24 Consolidated Incentives_Projections.xlsx.”
Attachment A includes the changes to the MCS necessary to implement the incentives. Notice, Attachment A. The three Excel workbooks contain the Postal Service's financial models to support the proposed incentives.
The Postal Service states that “incentives build stronger relationships between the Postal Service and the mailing industry and encourage mailers to continue to use the mail to engage with their customers, expand their customer base, and increase customer loyalty.” Notice at 2-3. The Postal Service also asserts that “incentives have the potential to improve the Postal Service's overall financial position.”
The Postal Service states that the two incentives are “substantially identical.”
Under both incentives, “for every qualifying piece mailed in calendar year 2024 after the first million pieces, mailers receive a credit equal to 30 percent of the average per-piece price paid for mailing all qualifying pieces, unless the volume of qualifying pieces the mailer sent in the preceding fiscal year exceeded 1,000,000 pieces. In that case, credits accrue only after the mailer surpasses its fiscal year 2023 volume of qualifying pieces.”
The Postal Service estimates the First-Class Mail Growth Incentive “will spur $259 to $432 million in growth revenue, pay $78 to $130 million in credits, and result in $91 to $152 million in net contribution . . . .”
The Postal Service contends that the two incentives are rates of general applicability.
The Postal Service contends that 39 CFR 3030.221, which requires the Postal Service to raise rates for non-compensatory products in compensatory classes by at least 2 percentage points above the average for that class, does not apply in this proceeding because the Postal Service only seeks to lower prices.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3030.124(a), the Commission establishes Docket No. R2023-3 to consider the planned Market Dominant price change creating two incentives as well as the related classification changes identified in the Notice. The Commission invites comments from interested persons on whether the Postal Service's planned price adjustments are consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 39 CFR 3030.125. The applicable statutory and regulatory requirements the Commission considers in its review are the requirements of 39 CFR part 3030, Commission directives and orders, and 39 U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629. 39 CFR 3030.126(b). Comments are due no later than September 11, 2023. 39 CFR 3030.124(f).
The Postal Service's filing is available for review on the Commission's website (
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints John Avila to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this proceeding.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. R2023-3 to consider the planned Market Dominant price change creating two incentives, as well as the related classification changes, identified in the Postal Service's August 11, 2023 Notice.
2. Comments on the planned price adjustments and related classification changes are due no later than September 11, 2023.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, John Avila is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this proceeding.
4. The Commission directs the Secretary of the Commission to arrange for prompt publication of this notice in the
By the Commission.
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.
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 August 11, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service is providing notice that it has filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a market dominant price change creating two new incentives.
August 21, 2023.
Steven Mills, Director Product Management (Mailing Svcs.) at (202) 268-7433.
On August 11, 2023, the United States Postal Service® filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a notice of market dominant price change creating two new incentives.
As indicated in the filing, the Postal Service will offer two new incentives designed to promote the growth of First-Class Mail® (the “First-Class Mail Growth Incentive”) and USPS Marketing Mail® (the “Marketing Mail Growth Incentive”). The effective dates of both incentives is January 1, 2024, and the incentive period runs through December 31, 2024. Qualifying Market Dominant products eligible for the incentive are: First-Class Mail Presort Letters, First-Class Mail Presort Cards, First-Class Mail Presort Flats, USPS
Documents pertinent to this notice are available at
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 24, 2023.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
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
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to amend its Fee 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 Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“EDGX Equities”) as follows: (1) by modifying the criteria of Add Volume Tier 6; and (4) modifying the rates associated with Remove Volume Tier 1. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective August 1, 2023.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers six Add Volume Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes B,
• Add Volume Tier 6 provides a rebate of $0.0034 per share for securities priced above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The proposed criteria for Add Volume Tier 6 is as follows:
• Add Volume Tier 6 provides a rebate of $0.0033 per share for securities priced above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to Add Volume Tier 6 continue to incentivize Members to add volume on the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market, which benefits all market participants and provides greater execution opportunities on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes the lower proposed rebate associated with Add Volume Tier 6 provides a rebate commensurate with the difficulty of meeting the revised criteria associated with the tier.
In addition to the Add/Remove Volume Tiers offered under footnote 1, the Exchange also offers three Remove Volume Tiers that each assess a reduced fee for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes BB,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that its proposal to modify the criteria of Add Volume Tier 6 reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members. Additionally, the Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,
In particular, the Exchange believes its proposal to modify the criteria of Add Volume Tier 6 is reasonable because the revised tier will be available to all Members and provide all Members with an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate or a reduced fee. The Exchange further believes the proposed modifications to Add Volume Tier 6 will provide a reasonable means to encourage liquidity adding displayed orders in Members' order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide liquidity adding volume to the Exchange by offering them an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate on qualifying orders. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market quality, for all investors.
In addition, the Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the reduced fee assessed to Members that satisfy the criteria of Remove Volume Tier 1 is reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the Act because such change is designed to decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect to transaction pricing in order to offset some of the costs associated with the Exchange's current pricing structure, which provides various rebates for liquidity-adding orders, and the Exchange's operations generally, in a manner that is consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added liquidity. The proposed increased reduced fee ($0.0029 per share for securities priced above $1.00 and 0.29% of total dollar value for securities priced at or below $1.00) is reasonable and appropriate because it represents only a modest increase from the current reduced fee ($0.00285 per share for securities priced above $1.00 and 0.28% of total dollar value for securities priced at or below $1.00) and remains competitive with the reduced fees offered under Remove Volume Tiers 2 and 3. The Exchange further believes that the proposed increase to the reduced fee associated with Remove Volume Tier 1 is not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members equally, in that all Members will receive the reduced fee upon satisfying the criteria of Remove Volume Tier 1.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Add Volume Tier 6 are reasonable as they do not represent a significant departure from the criteria currently offered in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all Members will be eligible for the revised tiers and have the opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and receive the corresponding enhanced rebate or reduced fee if such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members qualifying the new proposed tiers. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based on the prior months volume, the Exchange anticipates that at least one Member will be able to satisfy proposed Add Volume Tier 6, and at least two Members will be able to satisfy Remove Volume Tier 1. The Exchange also notes that proposed changes will not adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for enhanced rebates or reduced fees offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding enhanced rebate or reduced fee.
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. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed changes to the Exchange's Add Volume Tier 6 and Remove Volume Tier 1 will apply to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for each of the Tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the Tiers' criteria and will receive the enhanced rebate or reduced fee on their qualifying orders if such criteria is met. The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes burden competition, but rather, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of EDGX by amending an existing pricing incentive and adopting pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 14% of the market share.
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 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-CboeEDGX-2023-051. 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 (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.
The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via webcast on the Commission's website at
1. The Commission will consider whether to adopt rule amendments to narrow an exemption from the requirement under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that any Commission-registered broker-dealer become a member of a national securities association if it effects securities transactions elsewhere than an exchange where it is a member.
2. The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules and amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) for private fund advisers and whether to adopt amendments to the compliance rule under the Advisers Act.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to update and amend IM-7240-1 regarding Complex Order
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is twofold: first, to amend IM-7240-1(a) to include Multi-Leg Orders;
As background, BOX implemented a debit/credit check which helps prevent the execution of Complex Orders at erroneous prices.
In addition to the debit/credit check, the system will also calculate a maximum price for true butterfly spreads, vertical spreads, and box spreads. After calculating the maximum price, the system will reject a Complex Limit Order that is a true butterfly spread, vertical spread, or a box spread if the absolute value of the Complex Order's limit price is greater than the maximum price. For a Complex Market Order that is a true butterfly spread, vertical spread, or a box spread, the system will reject the Complex Market Order if the absolute value of the execution price is greater than the maximum price. The maximum price value is calculated by adding a price buffer to the absolute value of a true butterfly spread, vertical spread, or box spread.
The Exchange notes that the principals [sic] drawn from theoretical models used to value options do not take into account bid to ask spreads and other factors that may influence the
The Exchange now proposes to amend IM-7240-1(a) to explicitly include Multi-Leg Orders and to make the debit/credit check voluntary for Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and [sic] maximum price in IM-7240-1(b) voluntary for Complex QOO Orders on the BOX Trading Floor.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to remove the word “regular” in IM-7240-1(a)(5) and IM-7240-1(b)(5). The Exchange believes the use of the word may cause confusion and is unnecessary, and, as such, believes that removing it will provide clarity within the rule text.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes further that allowing the debit/credit check to be voluntary for Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price to be voluntary for Complex QOO Orders will provide flexibility for investors to enter Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders which otherwise may have been rejected due to the debit/credit check and maximum price even though such orders may have been designed to meet investors' investment objectives. The election to forgo the debit/credit check and maximum price will only be allowed on the BOX Trading Floor because Floor Brokers will have an opportunity to evaluate the price of an order based on then-existing market conditions prior to submitting the order to the BOX Trading Host for execution, resulting in minimal risk of execution at an erroneous price. For example, Floor Brokers may communicate with their clients to determine whether an order was intended to be priced as a debit or as a credit or may be aware of the market conditions influencing a client to price an order as a debit or as a credit. The debit/credit check will apply to Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price will apply to Complex QOO Orders by default unless Participants elect otherwise on a per order basis. The Exchange notes that Complex QOO
The Exchange notes that other exchanges do not currently apply Complex Order price protections similar to the debit/credit check in open outcry trading.
The Exchange notes that CBOE also has debit/credit price reasonability checks which do not apply to orders routed through its PAR workstation and order management terminal (“OMT”), which are subject to manual handling.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes strike a balance between providing adequate risk controls and flexibility so that Participants may execute their intended strategies. Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors will have the added flexibility of executing Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders at prices of their choosing while still benefiting from Floor Brokers' handling of orders. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed changes will provide Participants with another venue to execute certain Complex Orders and Multi-Leg Orders that would otherwise be rejected by BOX but accepted on another exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to remove the word “regular” in IM-7240-1(a)(5) and IM-7240-1(b)(5) will provide clarity within the rule text and will reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
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 believes that, amending IM-7240-1(a) to include Multi-Leg Orders does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as the change will apply in the same manner to all Participants. Further, the inclusion of Multi-Leg Orders in IM-7240-1(a) does not impose a burden on intermarket competition as the change simply intends to align the Exchange's rules with current system functionality and accurately describe the application of the protections in IM-7240-1(a). The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition, as the proposed rule change will apply in the same manner to all Participants. The Exchange notes that debit/credit check applies to Complex Orders and Multi-Leg Orders and maximum price to Complex Orders of all Participants, regardless of account type. Additionally, all Participants will have the ability to opt out of the debit/credit check for Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price for Complex QOO Orders on a per order basis. Further, the proposed rule change will provide all Participants with the ability to execute certain Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders on BOX that previously were not allowed. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any undue burden on intermarket competition and may, on the contrary, promote competition, as other exchanges currently apply similar protections while allowing certain orders to execute in open outcry on their respective trading floors.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (a) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (b) impose any significant burden on competition; and (c) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposal will allow Participants to elect to waive the debit/credit check for Complex QOO Orders and Multi-Leg QOO Orders, and the maximum price protection for Complex QOO Orders, on an order-by-order basis. As discussed above, the Exchange states that Participants seek the flexibility to execute Complex QOO Orders and Multi-Leg QOO Orders at prices that the Exchange would otherwise reject. The Commission believes that the proposal will provide Participants with flexibility in executing Complex QOO and Multi-Leg QOO Orders that meet their investment objectives. Under the proposal, the debit/credit check and the maximum price protection will continue to apply by default, and Participants will have the ability to waive the protections on a per order basis. Because the waiver will be available only for Complex QOO and Multi-Leg QOO Orders traded in open outcry, but not for orders traded electronically, a Floor Broker will be able to evaluate the price of the Complex QOO or Multi-Leg QOO Order before submitting the order to the Trading Host for execution, which the Exchange believes will minimize the risk of a Complex QOO or Multi-Leg QOO Order executing at an erroneous price. The proposal to apply the debit/credit check to Limit Multi-Leg Orders should protect investors by helping to prevent Limit Multi-Leg Orders from executing at potentially erroneous prices. The proposal to delete the unnecessary word “regular” from IM-7240-1 should eliminate potential confusion and help to clarify the Exchange's rules. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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.
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”),
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Stress Testing Framework (“STF”). These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (“Rules”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes to update the STF. The STF sets forth the ICC stress testing practices that are focused on ensuring the adequacy of systemic risk protections. The proposed changes are limited to updating the stress period of the default-free Euro discount interest rate curve used in ICC's interest rate sensitivity analysis and providing additional clarifying language to the STF. ICC believes the proposed changes will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. ICC proposes to move forward with implementation of these changes following Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed changes are described in detail as follows.
ICC proposes to update STF Section 11, “Interest Rate Sensitivity Analysis”, which describes ICC's interest rate sensitivity analysis to account for the risks associated with changes to default-free discount interest rates. The STF currently incorporates two, currency specific, stress test parallel shifts (
The reasoning behind such proposed change is to respond to the current volatile interest rate period which began in 2022 and continues into 2023 due to the fast pace of U.S. Dollar and Euro interest rate increases. The impact to Euro interest rate volatility has been significant due to the sudden and rapid increases in Euro interest rates by the European Central Bank in an effort to curb multi-decade high inflation. Such interest rate volatility observed during this currently ongoing “2022/2023 inflation crisis period” is greater than the interest rate volatility observed in the Euro stress period currently in place in the STF (
Therefore, ICC proposes to replace the current “western European credit crisis period” stress period with the “2022/2023 inflation crisis period” stress period in Section 11 of the STF. Such proposed change is prudent, from a risk perspective, as it improves ICC's interest rate sensitivity analysis by referencing the higher interest rate volatility stress period. As the current inflation crisis remains ongoing, ICC will continue to monitor interest rate volatility for any new volatility peak observed in the current “2022/2023 inflation crisis period.”. In addition, ICC proposes to make analogous clarifying language changes to the identification of the default-free USD discount interest rate curve in Section 11 of the STF to remove the specific dates of the applicable stress period (
As discussed herein, the proposed changes update the default-free Euro discount interest rate curve used in ICC's interest rate sensitivity analysis to reflect the interest rate shocks observed during the recent 2022-2023 inflation crisis period. Such proposed change strengthens the STF by updating the Euro stress period. Accordingly, ICC believes that the proposed changes to the STF are consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds
In addition, the proposed changes to the STF are consistent with the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.
The amendments would also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to the STF update the stress period used in ICC's interest rate sensitivity analysis and make other clarifying changes, which ICC believes are appropriate in furtherance of the risk management of the clearing house. The changes to the STF will apply uniformly across all market participants. ICC does not believe these changes would affect the costs of clearing or the ability of market participants to access clearing. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2023-012 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2023.
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 (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe” or the “Clearing House”) proposes to modify its Model Risk Governance Framework (to be renamed the Model Risk Policy) (the “Model Risk Policy” or the “Policy”)
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 its Model Risk Governance Framework (to be renamed the Model Risk Policy) to expand its current scope to include certain risk frameworks and to distinguish between “Business As Usual” (“BAU”) and non-BAU parameter changes, among other changes discussed herein.
The amendments would expand the scope of the Policy to include risk frameworks used to quantify, aggregate and manage the risks of the Clearing House. The amendments would further clarify that references to “model” in the rest of the document would refer to both models and risk frameworks. The discussion of the architecture supporting the Policy would be revised to also include guidelines for the remediation of validation findings relating to models.
The amendments would also state that changes to risk parameters would be categorized as significant and not significant. This would follow the same categorization under the existing Policy with respect to model changes. A footnote referencing a specific ESMA opinion as providing the criteria defining model change significance would be revised to state more generally that the criteria will be in accordance with prevailing regulatory opinions, guidelines or requirements (in order to take into account any other regulatory positions that may be in effect from time to time). Moreover, the changes to parameters would be categorized as Business as Usual (“BAU”) and Non-BAU. Changes considered BAU would be defined as changes in the parameters resulting from the application of existing methodologies as part of a regular review or calibration exercise. Non-BAU changes would be all other changes. The amendments would clarify that the definition of BAU would be in accordance with existing regulatory guidelines.
The amendments would also clarify certain governance responsibilities. The Board would be responsible for the approval of significant non-BAU changes to risk parameters. Auto Pilot versus Production deviations beyond BAU thresholds will generally follow a similar governance process to that for changes in parameters but given that these deviations are usually time sensitive and driven by stressed market conditions, the Clearing House will need the ability to act quickly to ensure market stability. Thus, for these situations the governance process will involve Board notification rather than Board pre-approval and Risk Oversight Department review rather than full independent pre-validation. The Model Oversight Committee would be responsible for establishing and maintaining a model inventory and assigning a specific owner to each model (a function currently performed by the First Line). The Model Oversight Committee would also be responsible for approving non-significant non-BAU changes to risk parameters and for reviewing significant non-BAU changes to risk parameters for recommendation to the Board. In addition, the committee would be responsible for approving changes to model documentation.
The First Line responsibilities would also be modified by the amendments. As noted above, the First Line would no longer be responsible for establishing and maintaining a model inventory and assigning a specific owner to each model as that responsibility would be moved to the Model Oversight Committee. The First Line would be responsible for proposing and seeking approval for non-BAU changes to risk parameters (as it currently does for models, model changes, and model retirements). Similarly, the First Line
Finally, a new sub-section would be added addressing Non-BAU parameter changes. The section would provide that significant non-BAU changes to risk parameters must be validated before they are implemented in production. Non-significant non-BAU changes must be validated in accordance with the validation pipeline.
A number of other drafting clarifications and conforming changes replacing the references to “Framework” with “Policy” would also be made throughout the document.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the Policy are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The proposed changes to the Policy are designed to facilitate the risk management and governance of risk frameworks in a similar manner to that for models under the existing framework. The processes, controls and escalations used by the Clearing House with respect to the testing and reviewing of models, as well the responsibilities of the Clearing House's committees, management and the Board in relation to the models would thus be applied to risk frameworks. The amendments provide additional procedures for the management of risk parameter changes, distinguishing between BAU and non-BAU (which are subject to additional review and governance requirements). The Clearing House believes these changes will further overall risk management at the Clearing House, which would in turn promote the stability of the Clearing House and the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of cleared contracts. The enhanced Policy is therefore also generally consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in the safe operation of the Clearing House. (ICE Clear Europe would not expect the amendments to affect the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody or control or for which it is responsible.) Accordingly, the amendments satisfy the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).
The amendments to the Policy are also consistent with relevant provisions of Rule 17Ad-22.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(4) provides “[a] registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to [. . .] [p]rovide for an annual model validation consisting of evaluating the performance of the clearing agency's margin models and the related parameters and assumptions associated with such models by a qualified person who is free from influence from the persons responsible for the development or operation of the models being validated”.
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii) provides “[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable [. . .] [e]ffectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by [. . .] [p]erforming a model validation for its credit risk models not less than annually or more frequently as may be contemplated by the covered clearing agency's risk management framework established [. . .]”
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) provides that “[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonable designed to, as applicable [. . .] provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent”
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 amendments are being adopted to update and expand the Clearing House's Model Risk Policy, which relate to the Clearing House's internal processes for model and risk framework review, and overall risk management. The amendments will not change the Clearing House Rules or Procedures and will not change the rights or obligations of the Clearing House or Clearing Members. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments and adoption would affect the costs of clearing, the ability of market participants to access clearing, or the market for clearing services generally. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2023-019 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2023.
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to amend the Mid-Point Liquidity (“MPL”) Order pricing tiers. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective August 1, 2023. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the MPL Order
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, based on transaction fees and credits. Accordingly, the Exchange's fees are reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange has already established multiple levels of credits for MPL Orders that allow ETP Holders to passively interact with trading interest on the Exchange and offer potential price improvement to incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange.
As noted above, the Exchange currently provides multiple levels of credits, ranging from $0.0010 per share to $0.0026 per share, to ETP Holders that send MPL Orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange. For the current MPL Order pricing tier, the amount of the per share credit is based on an ETP Holder's ADV of provided liquidity in MPL Orders for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities combined (“MPL Adding ADV”). For ETP Holders that have MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 3 million shares, the Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0015 per share in Tape A securities and $0.0020 per share in Tape B and Tape C securities. For ETP Holders with MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 1.5 million shares but less than 3 million shares, the Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0015 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities. For ETP Holders with MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of less than 1.5 million shares, the Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0010 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities.
For the current MPL Orders Step Up Tier 1 and MPL Orders Step Up Tier 2, the amount of the per share credit is based on an ETP Holder's MPL Adding ADV as compared to such orders sent in May 2019. Under MPL Order Step Up Tier 1, if an ETP Holder's traded volume against its MPL Orders that provide liquidity is 2 million shares more than such ETP Holder's baseline of MPL liquidity-providing ADV, as measured in May 2019, the Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0026 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities. Under MPL Orders Step Up Tier 2, if an ETP Holder's traded volume against its MPL Orders that provide liquidity is 1 million shares more than such ETP Holder's baseline of MPL liquidity-
The Exchange now proposes to adopt new MPL Tiers 1 and 2, replace current MPL Orders Step Up Tier 1 with proposed MPL Tier 3, replace current MPL Orders Step Up Tier 2 with proposed MPL Tier 4, and separate current MPL Orders tier into proposed MPL Tier 5 and proposed MPL Tier 6. The proposed changes are described more fully below.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt two new MPL Order pricing tiers. Under proposed new MPL Tier 1, the Exchange would provide a credit of $0.0028 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities to ETP Holders that have MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 15 million shares.
Next, under proposed new MPL Tier 2, the Exchange would provide a credit of $0.0027 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities to ETP Holders that have MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 13 million shares.
Next, the Exchange proposes to replace current MPL Orders Step Up Tier 1 with proposed MPL Tier 3. Under proposed MPL Tier 3, the Exchange would provide a credit of $0.0026 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities to ETP Holders that have MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 5 million shares. ETP Holders may alternatively qualify for the proposed MPL Tier 3 credit if they have MPL Adding ADV during the billing month of at least 2 million shares and have MPL Adding ADV, as a percent of Adding ADV, of at least 50%.
Next, the Exchange proposes to replace current MPL Orders Step Up Tier 2 with proposed MPL Tier 4. Under proposed MPL Tier 4, the Exchange would provide a credit of $0.0025 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities to ETP Holders that have MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 3 million shares. ETP Holders may alternatively qualify for the proposed MPL Tier 4 credit if they have MPL Adding ADV during the billing month of at least 1 million shares and have MPL Adding ADV, as a percent of Adding ADV, of at least 50%.
Next, the Exchange proposes to separate current MPL Orders tier into proposed MPL Tier 5 and proposed MPL Tier 6. Under current MPL Orders tier, ETP Holders that have MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 3 million shares currently qualify for a credit of $0.0015 per share in Tape A securities and $0.0020 per share in Tape B and Tape C securities. The Exchange proposes the following changes to the current pricing tier:
• Rename the tier as MPL Tier 5;
• Lower the MPL Adding ADV requirement to qualify for the renamed tier, from 3 million shares to 2 million shares; and
• Increase the credit applicable to the renamed tier in Tape A securities, from $0.0015 per share to $0.0020 per share.
Finally, under current MPL Orders Tier, ETP Holders that have MPL Adding ADV during a billing month of at least 1.5 million shares currently qualify for a credit off $0.0015 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities. The Exchange proposes to rename the current pricing tier as MPL Tier 6 without any change to the volume requirement or credits payable under the pricing tier.
With this proposed change, the MPL Order Tiers pricing tier would appear as follows:
The goal of the proposed rule change is to incentivize ETP Holders with higher per share credits to increase the number of MPL Orders they post on the Exchange's Book, which would provide additional price improvement opportunities for incoming orders. MPL Orders allow for additional opportunities for passive interaction with trading interest on the Exchange and are designed to offer potential price improvement to incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that by correlating the level of the credit to the level of MPL Adding ADV, the Exchange's fee structure would incentivize ETP Holders to submit more liquidity-providing MPL Orders to the Exchange, thereby increasing the potential for price improvement to incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes adopting increased credits payable under the proposed MPL Tiers 1 and 2 would provide an incentive for ETP Holders to send increased order flow to qualify for these tiers. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly as it relates to attracting MPL Orders that are posted on the Exchange's Book. Because each of the proposed MPL Tiers 1 and 2 pricing tiers would require ETP Holders to provide increased liquidity, the Exchange believes that the proposed higher credits would incentivize ETP Holders to route additional liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange to qualify for the proposed pricing tiers.
The Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether the proposed new pricing tiers would result in any ETP Holders sending more of their liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange to qualify for the proposed new credits. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this opportunity, but additional liquidity-providing orders would benefit all market participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed higher credits would provide
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable, providing liquidity that would be displayed on the Exchange. The proposed rule change is designed to incentivize ETP Holders to increase the orders sent to the Exchange that would provide displayed liquidity, which would support the quality of price discovery and transparency on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that by correlating the level of the credit to the level of executed providing volume on the Exchange, the Exchange's fee structure would incentivize ETP Holders to submit more displayed, liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange that are likely to be executed (
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading services in NMS stocks has become “more fragmented and competitive.”
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the MPL Order pricing tiers, including the adoption of new MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2 and the proposed adoption of an alternative criteria to qualify for proposed MPL Tier 3 and MPL Tier 4, are reasonable because the current credits and the increased credits under the proposed MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2 would provide an incentive for ETP Holders to route greater amounts of liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, particularly for attracting order flow that provides liquidity on an exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to provide the current level of credits and the higher credits under the proposed MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2 for orders that provide liquidity if an ETP Holder meets the qualification for such pricing tiers.
Because the proposed MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2 would be new with a requirement to submit greater amounts of MPL Adding ADV, no ETP Holder currently qualifies for the proposed new pricing tiers. The Exchange believes the proposed increased credits are reasonable as they would provide an additional incentive for ETP Holders to qualify for these new tiers and direct their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added levels of liquidity, thereby contributing to the depth and market quality on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed alternative to qualify for MPL Tier 3 and MPL Tier 4 by utilizing a lower MPL adding volume requirement coupled with a MPL Adding ADV, as a percent of Adding ADV, of at least 50%, is reasonable because the proposed adoption of an alternative criteria would provide ETP Holders with greater flexibility to reach these tiers, thereby creating an added incentive for ETP Holders to bring additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby encouraging greater participation and liquidity.
The Exchange believes amending the current pricing tier by adopting an alternative requirement may encourage those ETP Holders who could not previously achieve the volume requirement an incentive to increase their order flow on the Exchange. Increased liquidity would benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and improve its market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the MPL Order pricing tiers, including the adoption of increased credits under the proposed MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2 pricing tiers and the proposed adoption of an alternative criteria to qualify for proposed MPL Tier 3 and MPL Tier 4, is equitable because the magnitude of the additional credit is not unreasonably high in comparison to the credit paid with respect to other pricing tiers on the Exchange, and in comparison to the credits paid by other exchanges for orders that provide
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality. ETP Holders that currently qualify for credits associated with MPL Orders will continue to receive credits when they provide liquidity to the Exchange. With the proposed new MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2, all ETP Holders would be eligible to qualify for the higher credit if they increase their MPL Adding ADV. The Exchange believes that recalibrating the credits for providing liquidity will continue to attract order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby providing additional price improvement opportunities on the Exchange and benefiting investors generally. As to those market participants that do not presently qualify for the credits associated with MPL Orders, the proposal will not adversely impact their existing pricing or their ability to qualify for other credits provided by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. Moreover, this proposed rule change neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide the current level of credits and the increased per share credits under proposed MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2 as each such credit would be provided on an equal basis to all ETP Holders that add liquidity by meeting the requirements of the existing MPL Order pricing tiers, including the proposed MPL Tier 1 and MPL Tier 2. The Exchange believes the proposed increased per share credits would incentivize ETP Holders that meet the current tiered requirements to send more of their MPL Orders to the Exchange to qualify for such credits. The Exchange further believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to adopt an alternative requirement to qualify for the current level of credits under proposed MPL Tier 3 and MPL Tier 4 as each such credit would be provided on an equal basis to all ETP Holders and each such ETP Holder would have an opportunity to qualify for the current level of credit by utilizing a mix of MPL Adding ADV and Adding ADV in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are not unfairly discriminatory because they are reasonably related to the value of the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume. The credits, both existing and the proposed higher ones, would apply equally to all ETP Holders as each would be required to provide liquidity in MPL Orders for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities combined during the billing month regardless of whether an ETP Holder currently meets the requirement of another pricing tier.
Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes could promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar order types and comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4724-DR), dated 08/10/2023.
Issued on 08/10/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/10/2023, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18061 5 and for economic injury is 18062 0.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4727-DR), dated 08/12/2023.
Issued on 08/12/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/12/2023, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18067 C and for economic injury is 18068 0.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4725-DR), dated 08/11/2023.
Issued on 08/11/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/11/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18071 6 and for economic injury is 18072 0.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Montana (FEMA-4726-DR), dated 08/12/2023.
Issued on 08/12/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/12/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18073 6 and for economic injury is 18074 0.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated 07/14/2023.
Issued on 08/15/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, 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 Vermont, dated 07/14/2023, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 07/07/2023 through 07/17/2023.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Illinois (FEMA-4728-DR), dated 08/15/2023.
Issued on 08/15/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/15/2023, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18075 6 and for economic injury is 18076 0.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 4.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated 07/14/2023.
Issued on 08/15/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, 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 Vermont,
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4727-DR), dated 08/12/2023.
Issued on 08/12/2023.
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 Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/12/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18069 C and for economic injury is 18070 0.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
The Foreign Affairs Policy Board provides the Secretary of State with advice, feedback, and perspectives from a diverse array of experts to advance the Department's mission and help root American foreign policy in the needs and aspirations of the American people.
The Board's activities are advisory only. The Board is established under the general authority of the Secretary of State and the Department of State as set forth in title 22 of the United States Code, in particular section 2656 of that Title and consistent with Federal Advisory Committee Act.
For additional information, contact Leslie Thompson in the Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Department of State, at email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 11, 2023.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-0288 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Andrew Thai at (202) 267-0175, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of supplemental approval of the Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) noise compatibility program.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces additional findings for the noise compatibility program submitted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for EWR, see
The effective date of the FAA's Supplemental Record of Approval of the EWR noise compatibility program is August 14, 2023.
Andrew Brooks, Regional Environmental Program Manager, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Plaza, Room 516, Jamaica, NY 11434. Phone Number: 718-553-2511.
This notice announces FAA's issuance of a Supplemental Record of Approval (ROA) of the EWR noise compatibility program (NCP), effective on August 14, 2023. Per United States Code section 47504 (49 U.S.C. 47504) and title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150, an airport sponsor who previously submitted a noise exposure map (NEM) may submit to the FAA a noise compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport sponsor for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the NEMs. As required by 49 U.S.C. 47504, such programs must be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and the FAA. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport sponsor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA approval or disapproval of an airports recommendations in their NCP are made in accordance with the requirements and standards pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47504 and 14 CFR part 150, which is limited to the following determinations:
a. The NCP was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of 14 CFR 150.23;
b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Specific limitations of FAA's approval of NCPs are delineated in 14 CFR 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the noise compatibility program nor a determination that all measures covered by the NCP are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests must be submitted to the FAA
The Port Authority submitted the EWR NEMs, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study to the FAA and the FAA determined that the EWR NEMs were in compliance with applicable requirements under 14 CFR 150, effective January 15, 2019 (Noise Exposure Map Notice for Newark Liberty International Airport, Newark, New Jersey, volume 84,
The EWR NCP is comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by Port Authority and adjacent jurisdictions within the next one to five years. FAA evaluated and approved this material as a noise compatibility program as described in 49 U.S.C. 47504. The submitted NCP contained 28 proposed measures to minimize impacts of aviation noise on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the 49 U.S.C. 47504 and 14 CFR part 150 were satisfied. A ROA for the overall program was issued by the FAA effective February 15, 2023 (Approval of Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Noise Compatibility Program, volume 88,
Noise Abatement Measure 2: Continue Use of Easterly Departure Headings on Runways 4L and 4R—No Action Required at This Time. This measure relates to flight procedures under title 49 U.S.C. 47504(b). In accordance with 14 CFR part 150.35(a), additional coordination will be occurring with the Air Traffic Organization and a Supplemental Record of Approval with FAA's final decision on this proposed measure will be issued on or before August 14, 2023.
Noise Abatement Measure 4: Determine and Implement Optimal Easterly Departure Headings on Runways 4L and 4R—No Action Required at This Time. This measure relates to flight procedures under Title 49 U.S.C. 47504(b). In accordance with 14 CFR part 150.35(a), additional coordination will be occurring with the Air Traffic Organization and a Supplemental Record of Approval with FAA's final decision on this proposed measure will be issued on or before August 14, 2023.
Noise Abatement Measure 6: Encourage Use of FAA-prescribed Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile Procedures on a Voluntary Basis—Disapproved for Purposes of part 150.
Noise Abatement Measure 12: Implement Nighttime “New Jersey Turnpike” Departure Procedures for Runways 22L and 22R—No Action Required at This Time. This measure relates to flight procedures under Title 49 U.S.C. 47504(b). In accordance with 14 CFR part 150.35(a), additional coordination will be occurring with the Air Traffic Organization and a Supplemental Record of Approval with FAA's final decision on this proposed measure will be issued on or before August 14, 2023.
Consultation with the FAA's Air Traffic Organization was conducted for the three Noise Abatement Measures (Measures 2, 4, and 12) identified as requiring additional review. The Supplemental ROA includes decisions on these three measures. Additionally, following issuance of the ROA on February 15, 2023, the Port Authority requested that the FAA revisit the decision for Noise Abatement Measure 6, indicating that the rationale for disapproval of the proposed Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) originally provided contained an error. The ROA stated that “Documentation provided in support of this measure by the Port Authority did not include analysis comparing implementation of the measure to the accepted EWR NEM, rather it included a comparative analysis of implementation of potential NADP 1 and NADP 2 procedures at EWR.” After review, the FAA determined that this was an oversight due to a differing approach in analysis used at EWR in comparison to that done for the recently approved NCP for LaGuardia Airport and that the EWR NCP documentation did include the required analysis. This Supplemental ROA also includes a revised decision on this measure. The specific program elements within the Supplemental ROA and their individual determinations are as follows:
Noise Abatement Measure 2: Disapproved.
Noise Abatement Measure 4: Disapproved.
Noise Abatement Measure 6: Encourage Use of FAA-prescribed Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile Procedures on a Voluntary Basis—Approved as Voluntary.
Noise Abatement Measure 12: Implement Nighttime “New Jersey Turnpike” Departure Procedures for Runways 22L and 22R—Disapproved.
These determinations are set forth in detail in the Supplemental ROA signed by the FAA Airports Eastern Division Director on August 14, 2023. The Supplemental ROA pertains to the listed measures only, and does not change the decisions made by the FAA in the ROA for the NCP dated February 15, 2023 for the measures not contained within the Supplemental ROA. The Supplemental ROA, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the original submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above. The Supplemental ROA also will be available on the internet on the FAA's website at
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals for an
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2023.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0022 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0022), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively).
On February 1, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, “Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; National Association of the Deaf,” (78 FR 7479), its decision to grant requests from 40 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers. Since that time the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from hard of hearing and deaf individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers.
Eric Blount, 28, holds a class D driver's license in Arizona.
Shaun Cannady, 22, holds a class C driver's license in California.
Rebecca Haynes, 50, holds a class C driver's license in Texas.
Kyesha Hemphill, 33, holds a class R driver's license in Mississippi.
Kayla Lucero, 31, holds a class D driver's license in New Mexico.
Alexandra Muller, 27, holds a class D driver's license in Arizona.
Glenn Rozier, 78, holds a class B commercial driver's license (CDL) in Georgia.
Aaron Sanders, 40, holds a driver's license in Washington.
Eric Shepeard, 49, holds a class B driver's license in Delaware.
Timothy Szabo, 36, holds a class ABCD CDL in Wisconsin.
Perry Wesberry, 41, holds a class A CDL in Virginia.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on July 30, 2023. The exemptions expire on July 30, 2025.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On July 10, 2023, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (88 FR 43648). The public comment period ended on August 9, 2023, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively).
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 11 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in § 391.41(b)(11).
As of July 30, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 43649):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0383, FMCSA-2014-0384, FMCSA-2018-0138, or FMCSA-2021-0014. Their exemptions were applicable as of July 30, 2023 and will expire on July 30, 2025.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, or the FMCSRs.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 12 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions are applicable on August 16, 2023. The exemptions expire on August 16, 2025.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On July 10, 2023, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 12 individuals requesting an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (88 FR 43644). The public comment period ended on August 9, 2023, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively).
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. However, FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on relevant scientific information and literature, and the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.” The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) no studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an equal or greater level of safety would likely be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce, the Agency finds the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds further that in each case exempting these applicants from the hearing standard in § 391.41(b)(11) would likely achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption, consistent with
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and include the following: (1) each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in § 390.5T; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard; in § 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, or the FMCSRs.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 10 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On June 30, 2023, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 10 individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (88 FR 42417). The public comment period ended on July 31, 2023, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based on its evaluation of the 10 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8).
As of July 5, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 42417):
Alan Finlayson (AL); and Stephen Harmon (WV).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0323 or FMCSA-2019-0029. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 5, 2023 and will expire on July 5, 2025.
As of July 12, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 42417):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2011-0089, FMCSA-2014-0382, FMCSA-2018-0057, or FMCSA-2019-0028. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 12, 2023 and will expire on July 12, 2025.
As of July 30, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the Charles Anthony (ND) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 42417).
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2021-0025. Their exemption is applicable as of July 30, 2023 and will expire on July 30, 2025.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describe the nature of the information collection and their expected burdens.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Management Planning Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop TAD-10, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-0354 or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On May 25, 2023, FTA published a 60-day notice (88 FR 33962) in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describe the nature of the information collection and their expected burdens.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Management Planning Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop TAD-10, Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-0354 or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On May 25, 2023, FTA published a 60-day notice (88 FR 33963) in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On August 10, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We propose to amend the horse protection regulations to provide that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will screen, train, and authorize qualified persons to conduct inspections at horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions to ensure compliance with the Horse Protection Act (the Act). The proposed actions are intended to strengthen regulatory requirements to protect horses from the practice of soring and eliminate unfair competition as the Act requires.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 20, 2023.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Aaron Rhyner, DVM, Assistant Director, USDA-APHIS-Animal Care, 2150 Centre Ave., Building B, Mailstop 3W11, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117;
Under the Horse Protection Act (HPA, or the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1821
The Secretary has delegated responsibility for administering the Act to the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the Act has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. Regulations and standards established under the Act are contained in 9 CFR part 11 (referred to below as the regulations), and 9 CFR part 12 lists the rules of practice governing administrative proceedings.
Section 2 of the Act, “Definitions” (15 U.S.C. 1821(3)), defines a “sore” horse as follows:
“The term `sore' when used to describe a horse means that:
(A) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse,
(B) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse,
(C) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse, or
(D) Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. . . .”
Soring has been used primarily in the training of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses
Under the HPA, it is unlawful for any person to show, exhibit, sell, or transport sore horses, or to use any prohibited equipment, device, paraphernalia, or substance in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions. The HPA holds horse owners responsible should they allow any such unlawful activities to occur, and requires management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions (referred to as “management” or “event management,” below) to ensure that sore horses do not compete or otherwise participate in these events.
After Congress passed the HPA in 1970, APHIS established regulations to enforce the Act, including restrictions on the use of certain equipment, devices, and substances. In accordance with the Act, the regulations also include inspection provisions for detecting soring in horses at shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. In 1976, Congress amended the Act
Responding to Congress' 1976 amendment to the Act, APHIS revised the regulations (44 FR 1558-1566, January 5, 1979) to include qualifications for “Designated Qualified Persons,” or DQPs, to serve as third-party inspectors employed and compensated by the industry, as well as provisions for certifying industry-run
HIOs currently fill several roles, both unregulated and regulated, for horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. For example, event management may retain an HIO to assist with activities not regulated under the Act, such as registering participants and coordinating event logistics, supplying show judges, and promoting events. Regulated HIO activities, in addition to training and licensing DQPs, include assessing and enforcing minimum penalties for certain violations of the regulations, conducting hearings for appeals of violations, and reporting disciplinary actions against exhibitors, event management, and DQPs to APHIS. Under the current regulatory regime, an HIO seeking certification to train and license DQPs is required to submit to APHIS a formal request in writing for certification of its DQP program and a detailed outline of the program, in accordance with paragraph (b) of § 11.7 of the regulations.
Under the current Horse Protection program, DQPs are the primary party responsible for inspecting and diagnosing soreness in horses. A DQP is a qualified person who, under the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1823(c) cited above, may be appointed by management of a horse show or sale to detect horses that are sored, and to otherwise conduct inspections for the purpose of enforcing the Act. DQPs may be reimbursed for services directly by event management or by an HIO which has contracted with them to provide inspections for events. DQPs must have equine experience and meet professional qualifications as set forth in § 11.7(a).
DQP candidates must successfully complete a formal training program developed and delivered by the HIO before they can be licensed, except that veterinarians already accredited by USDA may be licensed as DQPs without having to participate in formal training. Such veterinarians must also be a member of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, or large animal practitioners with substantial equine experience, or knowledgeable of equine lameness as related to soring and soring practices. Section 11.7(a)(1)(iii) states that veterinarians having such knowledge might include those with a small animal practice who own, train, judge, or show horses, or be Doctors of Veterinary Medicine who teach equine related subjects in an accredited college or school of veterinary medicine.
Alternatively, DQPs may be farriers, horse trainers, and other knowledgeable individuals whose past experience and training would qualify them for positions as HIO stewards or judges (or their equivalent), provided that they are trained and licensed by an HIO or association whose DQP program has been certified by APHIS. Of the 59 persons licensed as DQPs in fiscal year 2022, only one is a veterinarian.
APHIS Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs) may attend HPA-covered events unannounced to oversee and conduct inspections and to otherwise determine compliance with the Act. To ensure that horses are disqualified when soreness is detected or when other violations are found, APHIS also reviews reports by event management, HIOs, and DQPs, and conducts audits of records maintained by certified DQP programs.
APHIS has several options for resolving a case in which the evidence substantiates that an alleged violation has occurred. These include issuing official warnings to those involved in the alleged violation, offering to resolve the case through a stipulated penalty, and referring the case to the USDA Office of the General Counsel for formal administrative action before the USDA Office of Administrative Law Judges or referral to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The current structure of the Horse Protection regulations in 9 CFR parts 11 and 12 is summarized below.
Section 11.1, “Definitions,” lists the definitions for terms used throughout part 11.
Section 11.2, “Prohibitions concerning exhibitors,” lists general and specific prohibitions for any device, method, practice, or substance used on any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore.
In § 11.2(a), the general prohibitions state that “no chain, boot, roller, collar, action device, nor any other device, method, practice, or substance shall be used with respect to any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore.” Prohibitions regarding devices, equipment, or practices on any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction are listed in paragraph (b) of § 11.2. (We discuss the specific prohibitions under “Prohibitions Concerning Exhibitors” below.)
Paragraph (c) prohibits all substances on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse while being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction, except lubricants such as glycerin, petrolatum, and mineral oil, or mixtures. Lubricants can only be applied after the horse has been inspected by management or by a DQP, and lubricants that will be applied must be made available to APHIS personnel for inspection and sampling as deemed necessary.
Paragraph (d) provides specific requirements for rest periods during horse show and horse exhibition workouts or performances for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, and working exhibitions for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses at sales or auctions.
In paragraph (e) of § 11.2, failure to provide information or providing any false or misleading information required by the Act or regulations or requested by Department representatives, by any person that owns, trains, shows, exhibits, or sells or has custody of, or direction or control over any horse shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned or entered for the purpose of being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction, is prohibited.
Under § 11.3, “Scar rule,”
Paragraph (b) of § 11.3 states the “posterior surfaces of the pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or “pocket” may show bilateral areas of
Section 11.4, “Inspection and detention of horses,” includes requirements regarding inspection of horses by APHIS representatives, as well as detention of horses for inspection if an APHIS representative has probable cause to believe that a horse is sore. This section also includes provisions for maintaining the well-being of a horse in detention and for informing the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations of such alleged violation before the horse is released from detention. Provisions for requesting reexamination and testing of detained horses are also included in this section.
Under § 11.5, “Access to premises and records,” paragraph (a) provides that the management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction “shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS representatives with unlimited access to the grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, grounds, offices, and all other areas of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, including any adjacent areas under their direction, control, or supervision for the purpose of inspecting any horses, or any records required to be kept by regulation or otherwise maintained.” Management must also provide an adequate, safe, and accessible area for the visual inspection and observation of horses while such horses are competitively or otherwise performing at any horse show or horse exhibition, or while such horses are being sold or auctioned or offered for sale or auction at any horse sale or horse auction.
Paragraph (b) of § 11.5 requires that “[e]ach horse owner, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, admit any APHIS representative or Designated Qualified Person appointed by management, to all areas of barns, compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show, exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or related areas at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, for the purpose of inspecting any such horse at any and all reasonable times.” Such persons must also promptly present his or her horse for inspection upon notification by any APHIS representative or DQP appointed by management for the purpose of determining whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations.
Section 11.6, “Inspection space and facility requirements,” requires the management of every horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction containing Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses to provide, without fee, sufficient space and facilities for APHIS representatives to carry out their duties under the Act and regulations, whether or not management has received prior notification by APHIS. The management of every horse show, exhibition, horse sale or auction which does not contain Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses must provide, without fee, sufficient space and facilities when requested to do so by APHIS representatives. Space and facility requirements include sufficient space for inspecting horses, protection from the elements, a means to control crowds and onlookers, an accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical power source, if electrical service is available at the site and is requested by the APHIS representative, and appropriate inspection waiting and detention areas.
Paragraph (a) of § 11.7, “Certification and licensing of designated qualified persons (DQP's)” currently lists basic professional qualifications required of DQP applicants and paragraph (b) lists certification requirements for DQP programs certified by APHIS and initiated and maintained by HIOs or associations.
Paragraph (c) contains DQP licensing requirements in HIOs or associations receiving Department certification for the training and licensing of DQPs, and paragraph (d) of § 11.7 lists recordkeeping and other requirements to be met by HIOs or associations and DQPs.
Paragraph (e) of § 11.7 prohibits the management of any horse show, exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction from appointing any person to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of enforcing the Act if such person does not hold a valid DQP license, if the license is canceled, or if the person has been disqualified by the Secretary from performing diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act, after notice and opportunity for a hearing.
Paragraph (f) contains provisions for canceling a DQP license. Concluding this section, paragraph (g) provides the process for revoking the DQP program certification of an HIO or association.
Section 11.20 of the current regulations lists the responsibilities and liabilities of the management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction which does not appoint a DQP to inspect horses, noting that in such cases event management is responsible and legally liable for identifying all horses that are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations and must disqualify or disallow any such horses from participating or competing in any horse show, exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. If management does appoint a DQP to inspect horses, the section provides that management must not take any action which would interfere with or influence a DQP in carrying out his or her duties or making decisions concerning whether or not any horse is sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations.
Section 11.20 also includes responsibilities for the management of any horse show, exhibition, horse sale or auction which designates and appoints one or more DQPs to inspect horses. Management in such cases must accord the DQP access to all records and areas of the grounds of such show, exhibition, sale, or auction and the same right to inspect horses and records as is accorded to any APHIS representative.
Section 11.21 lists inspection procedures that DQPs must follow, including requirements for walking and turning the horse in a manner that allows the DQP to determine whether the horse exhibits signs of soreness. This section also includes the procedure for proper palpation to detect soreness, as well as procedures for conducting horses through other elements of the inspection process.
Under § 11.22, “Records required and disposition thereof,” the management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction, that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses is required to maintain for at least 90 days following the closing date of the show, exhibition, or sale or auction, all pertinent records. If specifically required by APHIS, management may be required to hold the records specified longer than 90 days.
Under paragraph (a) of § 11.23, “Inspection of records,” the management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction must allow any APHIS representative, upon request, to examine and make copies of any and all records pertaining to any horse. Similarly, paragraph (b) requires that HIOs or associations that train, maintain, and license inspectors under a certified DQP program must permit any APHIS representative, upon request, to examine and copy any and all records relating to the DQP program which are required by any part of the regulations.
In § 11.24, “Reporting by management,” paragraph (a) states that within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction, containing Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, management must submit to the Regional Director for the State in which the show, exhibition, sale or auction was held, information required in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of § 11.22 for each horse excused or disqualified by management or its representatives from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action.
In paragraph (b) of § 11.24, within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction which does not contain Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the management must inform the Regional Director for the State in which the show, exhibition, sale or auction was held, of any case where a horse was excused or disqualified by management or its representatives from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it was found to be sore.
Section 11.25, “Minimum penalties to be assessed and enforced by HIOs that license DQPs” lists suspensions and minimum penalties for violations of the Act and regulations. HIOs are required to include penalties in their rulebooks
Section 11.40 lists prohibitions and requirements concerning persons involved in transportation of certain horses, including providing APHIS with transportation information in order to determine compliance with the Act and regulations.
Section § 11.41 currently requires each HIO or association which sponsors or sanctions any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction, to furnish the Department by March 1st of each year with all such HIO or association rulebooks, and disciplinary procedures for the previous year pertaining to violations of the Act or regulations, applicable to such horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction. Each HIO or association must also furnish the Department with a quarterly report of all disciplinary actions taken against the management of
Part 12 of the Horse Protection regulations reference the rules of practice for USDA as promulgated in 7 CFR part 1.
Section 12.1 addresses the scope and applicability of rules of practice. These rules of practice are applicable to adjudicatory, administrative proceedings under section 6(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(a)) and sections 6(b) and (c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(b) and (c)).
Lastly, § 12.10, “Stipulations,” provides that the Administrator may enter into a stipulation with any person notified of an apparent violation of the Act or regulations if that person waives a hearing and agrees to pay a specified civil penalty within a designated time.
Consistent with the aims of the HPA, the goal of the USDA-APHIS Horse Protection program and regulations is to eliminate the inhumane practice of soring and by so doing promote fair competition in horse shows and exhibitions. Since 1979, when APHIS promulgated the regulations to allow management to appoint qualified persons to conduct inspections, the Agency has regularly evaluated the effectiveness of the Horse Protection program and sought ways to improve its approaches to ending soring.
Unfortunately, soring persists despite the Agency's efforts to regulate and work with the Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse industries to eliminate the practice. In September 2010, USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) formally evaluated APHIS' oversight of the Horse Protection program
As part of the audit, OIG auditors performed fieldwork in 2008 and 2009 at APHIS offices in Washington, DC and Riverdale, Maryland. In addition, auditors completed field visits to horse shows in Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and reviewed laws, regulations, procedures, and inspection protocols relating to oversight of DQPs. They also interviewed APHIS program officials to understand how they ensure oversight of their respective programs and reviewed available laws, regulations, procedures, and program documents to evaluate program implementation. Audit staff also interviewed personnel from USDA-APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Services to understand their role in collecting evidence for Federal cases, as well as USDA Office of General Counsel officials to learn their processes for evaluating potential cases for enforcement, prosecution, and closing of Federal cases related to violations of the Act. APHIS Review and Analysis Branch personnel were interviewed regarding HIO record reviews performed and their study of the violation rate disparity that exists when APHIS veterinarians are present at shows, sales, and exhibitions.
OIG auditors also reviewed show and sale reports for 34 shows that they attended in 2008, in order to identify problems noted by APHIS veterinarians relating to DQP performance and the issuance of violation tickets. Audit staff interviewed HIO officials to discuss their perspective on APHIS' oversight of the DQP program and interviewed DQPs to discuss the program and possible improvements. Finally, auditors attended a training seminar hosted by
During these evaluations, OIG auditors identified multiple conflicts of interest among DQPs, the HIOs that train, license, and employ them, horse exhibitors, and management of shows and exhibitions that affiliate with HIOs for inspection services. OIG concluded that these conflicts of interest contributed to horses being allowed to compete while sore. They noted that some DQPs are reluctant to dismiss sored horses discovered during inspections, as doing so inconveniences event management and makes it less likely that such DQPs will be hired to inspect at future shows. Moreover, some DQPs own and exhibit their own horses, so a DQP inspecting an exhibitor's horse at one show may be facing that exhibitor conducting inspections at another show. As a consequence, auditors found that some DQPs frequently failed to inspect horses visually and physically in accordance with the regulations and allowed sored horses to show.
OIG auditors also discovered that some DQPs avoid documenting instances of soring in several ways. DQPs may provide only a warning to exhibitors when they detect soring in a horse, when under the regulations they are required to recommend to event management that the horse be prohibited from performing. The auditors also concluded that DQPs fail to sufficiently inspect and weigh chains, boots, and other action devices as required under the regulations. The report noted that when DQPs document a noncompliance with the Act, they sometimes identify a stable hand or a relative of the exhibitor as the alleged violator, so that the person actually at fault for the alleged violation can avoid responsibility. Further, the OIG report found that no reliable controls are in place to prevent an exhibitor who is serving an industry-issued suspension for a violation from competing in another show.
USDA-OIG's findings regarding the persistence of soring are consistent with those of the USDA's Office of the Judicial Officer (OJO), which issues final decisions on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture for purposes of judicial review.
As the USDA-OIG audit showed, DQPs are less likely to issue violations and more likely to allow sored horses to perform when APHIS officials are not present to observe and confirm the outcome of inspections. In a review of program data from 2005 to 2008, the OIG audit report
Furthermore, inspection data compiled by APHIS from fiscal year (FY) 2017 to 2022 (Tables 1 and 2, below) shows that inconsistencies persist in the number of violations detected by APHIS officials and those issued by DQPs inspecting horses. During this period, APHIS attended about 16 percent of all HPA-covered events featuring Tennessee Walking Horses, racking horses, and other breeds at which horse industry DQPs conducted inspections, performance as well as flat-shod classes. While APHIS attended only a fraction of the events at which DQPs were appointed to inspect horses, APHIS consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance at these events based on its VMO inspection findings. Most horses inspected by APHIS officials at these events were chosen at random, although APHIS chose to inspect some horses for which a suspicion of soring was warranted.
Moreover, DQPs consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance when APHIS officials were in attendance than when they were not. In FY 2021, for example, if only horses wearing “performance packages” (
Also notable is that the rate of noncompliance detected for horses wearing performance packages was significantly and consistently higher than that detected for flat-shod horses (Table 2). The marked difference between the rates of noncompliance found in padded performance classes and those found in flat-shod classes indicates that soring is concentrated in horses made to perform the exaggerated and unnatural chest-high gait popularly known as the “big lick.” Table 3 shows a similar discrepancy between performance and flat-shod horses regarding positive tests for prohibited substances.
While the data in tables 1 and 2 contain statistical anomalies and represent only a sampling of rates of noncompliance, the discrepancy between soring detected when APHIS officials are present at shows and when they are not is broadly consistent over time. We have considered several possible explanations for this discrepancy. In the absence of APHIS representatives, some DQPs may feel complacent and less focused on inspecting horses accurately, not due to any intention to allow a sore horse to show, but simply through inattention. It also may be that some DQPs are not receiving proper training in conducting inspections, although the evidence above suggests that, on the whole, DQPs are capable of diagnosing sored horses when under observation by APHIS representatives. We find none of these explanations credible in accounting for the discrepancy in soring diagnoses with and without APHIS representatives present, nor do we believe that a significantly different outcome would emerge if APHIS inspected every horse at every event. Our conclusion, as was also the conclusion of the OIG audit, is that a key obstacle to eliminating soring under the Horse Protection program is the unwillingness of some DQPs to correctly palpate and observe other actions necessary to making a proper diagnosis.
The data and findings presented in the OIG report and our evaluation of inspection records show that soring is still underdiagnosed in part because of the above noted conflicts of interest within the Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse industries. The report also confirmed that APHIS lacked a sufficient number of veterinary officers to attend and oversee inspections at all shows. The report recommended that APHIS abolish the DQP program and establish by regulation that only independent, accredited veterinarians perform inspections at sanctioned shows. It also recommended that better controls be instituted to prevent persons disqualified for HPA infractions at sanctioned events from participating in subsequent events. The report added that APHIS should hire and train these
As indicated in its 2010 response to the report, APHIS agreed with the intent of the USDA-OIG recommendations. APHIS responded that it would propose a regulatory change to abolish the current DQP licensing system and have the Agency be the only entity authorized to train and license DQPs but stated that it could not predict the timing for doing so. APHIS also stated that it would establish strict qualifications to prohibit conflicts of interest so that DQPs having close ties with the horse show industry would be excluded from licensing. APHIS additionally declared at the time that it would continue to allow HIOs to hire and compensate DQPs to inspect horse shows but they would have to use only DQPs trained and licensed by APHIS.
APHIS' response to the USDA-OIG audit report formed the basis for our proposed 2016 revision of the HPA regulations, discussed below.
Two provisions, both in § 11.7(d)(7) of the current regulations, specifically address conflicts of interest—one that prohibits a DQP from exhibiting or selling a horse at an event in which he or she has been appointed to inspect horses, and another in which the DQP cannot inspect at a show or sale in which horses owned by a member of his or her immediate family or employer are competing or are being offered for sale. While these provisions focus on two clearly apparent conflicts of interest, many others are not addressed in the regulations and are not enforceable through nonregulatory actions. A DQP may, for example, have business or other transactional interests with show judges, HIO officials, or others who have horses competing in events inspected by that DQP. We believe that a regulatory change that brings inspectors directly under APHIS oversight is necessary so that they can be sufficiently screened for conflicts of interest as a condition of Agency authorization to conduct inspections.
In 2011, APHIS initiated work on a rulemaking to reduce industry conflicts of interest and participation of suspended persons in HPA-covered events, as well as further restrict the physical means by which horses are sored. On July 26, 2016, we published in the
We invited the public to address our proposal to have APHIS train and license inspectors to address the conflict of interests between DQPs and the industry that results in underreporting violations of the Act. Following the recommendation from the USDA-OIG audit, we further proposed that only veterinarians and veterinary technicians,
We also proposed in 2016 to amend the prohibitions on devices, equipment, substances, and practices that can cause or mask soring or can reasonably be expected to do so, particularly with respect to Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses.
We solicited public comments on the proposal and received 130,975 submissions, as well as comments provided at 5 listening sessions. Comments came from State and Federal elected officials, including current and former U.S. Senators and Representatives; State agricultural agencies; farm bureaus; gaited horse organizations; trotting horse federations and organizations; other domestic and foreign horse industry organizations; veterinarians and veterinary associations; horse rescue and animal welfare advocacy organizations; horse owners, trainers, and farriers; small business owners; and the general public.
After responding to public requests to extend the proposal comment period,
On August 13, 2019, the Humane Society of the United States and other non-governmental organizations filed a lawsuit. HSUS argued that the 2017 HPA final rule had been duly promulgated and could not be withdrawn without first providing public notice in the
On July 22, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, ruling that APHIS had to
On May 12, 2023, the U.S. District Court issued its decision on remand without vacatur, but ordered that the 2017 rule would take automatic effect if the agency failed to take appropriate remedial action: Either promulgate an updated version of the rule, or otherwise remedy the deficiency in the withdrawal of the 2017 rule by conducting notice and comment on the withdrawal.
This current proposal incorporates steps taken in the 2017 HPA final rule to eliminate soring. In addition, it provides recent support and data emphasizing that the causes of soring are long-standing and endemic, and not simply aberrations that occurred in the past. To this end, we introduce into this proposal the Horse Protection program's latest inspection statistics and a recent study
The NAS study, published in 2021, concurs with the USDA-OIG audit report's recommendation that a regulatory change to the inspection component of the Horse Protection program is necessary to eliminate the conflicts of interest that encourage soring. The study was initiated in July 2017, when APHIS, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, and the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders Foundation jointly requested that NAS evaluate methods to detect soreness to help ensure that Horse Protection inspection protocols are based on sound scientific principles that can be applied consistently.
In the study, NAS examined the methods currently employed by DQPs and APHIS VMOs for detecting soreness in Tennessee Walking Horses and evaluated current inspector qualifications. NAS also highlighted emerging approaches for detecting soreness in horses and evaluated the role of the scar rule, a set of visual criteria in current § 11.3 used to determine if a horse has been sored. The committee that drafted the NAS study consisted of equine veterinarians and other professionals qualified to review the veterinary medical literature on hoof and pastern pain and skin changes and evaluate methods used to identify soreness in horses as defined in the Act and regulations for scientific validity. As part of their research, the committee reviewed USDA training materials and 61 DQP inspection videos provided by an HIO, and observed problems consistent with those cited in the OIG audit report 11 years earlier. The NAS committee confirmed, in brief, that due to both inadequate HIO training and industry conflicts of interest, DQPs were not consistently or correctly diagnosing sore horses. The committee noted that USDA's “current horse inspection process for detecting soreness involves observation of the horse's movement and posture and palpation of the limbs, which is the gold standard for detecting local pain and inflammation,”
Consistent with the findings of the USDA-OIG audit, the NAS committee concluded that some sored horses were not being identified during inspections. The committee's observation from evaluating the inspection videos was that DQPs are inconsistent in applying diagnostic techniques. During palpation, DQPs “showed large variations in the technique used to palpate the forelimbs from the carpus to the fetlock—from an absent to a very cursory palpation of limited areas at the palmar surface of the distal limb, with minimal attention given to the dorsal surface of the limb.”
The NAS committee further observed that, in many instances, DQPs did not adequately observe the horse's movement and posture. For example, from its review of inspection videos, the committee noted that DQPs often did not require the horse to take enough steps to determine whether soring or lameness was present.
At most shows, inspections are performed by a DQP employed by an HIO; less often, by an APHIS VMO, or in some instances, by both. The NAS committee reviewed the training requirements for DQPs in the regulations and noted that not only are DQPs not required to be veterinarians, but that they receive instruction from trainers who are not required to be veterinarians. APHIS VMOs, by contrast, have veterinary degrees and receive extensive medical training in identifying dermatologic, physiological, and behavioral indications of soring in horses.
The NAS committee strongly recommended that the use of DQPs for inspections under the current regulations be discontinued and that only veterinarians, preferably with equine experience, be allowed to examine horses, as is done in other equine competitions.
As we noted, the NAS committee also evaluated the scar rule criteria in § 11.3 as a means of diagnosing soring in horses. Since its 1979 inclusion in the regulations, interpretations of what the scar rule means and how to apply it have long led to disagreements among APHIS, veterinary organizations, and the gaited horse industry. As we noted, the NAS study resulted from a shared
The NAS study is the latest major effort to evaluate from a scientific perspective the causes of soring, the current and emerging methods available to diagnose it, and the effectiveness of the current Horse Protection regulations to eliminate the practice. The evidence in the NAS and OIG reports and the Horse Protection program inspection data indicate that many DQPs lack either the correct training or the willingness, or both, to diagnose sored horses, with one outcome—soring persists as an incentive to gain competitive advantage and sored horses continue to appear at shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
The changes we propose to make to 9 CFR part 11 include a comprehensive reorganization of the part. We have provided a derivation table below to show where we propose to move content currently in the regulations. Current sections are to the left. Sections where content will be moved and revised are listed on the right side of the table, along with new and removed sections:
Substantive changes we propose to make in part 11 include:
• Removing the requirement that DQPs be trained and licensed by HIOs and removing the term DQPs from the regulations. Instead, APHIS would screen and train qualified persons to be Horse Protection Inspectors, or HPIs. APHIS would authorize these applicants, preferably veterinarians, as HPIs after screening them for potential conflicts of interest and conducting training.
• Removing all regulatory requirements pertaining to HIOs, as HIOs would no longer have any regulatory responsibilities specific to them. APHIS would assume program administration and development, HPI training, and HPI disciplinary actions as necessary to enforce the Act and regulations. Services contracted between HIOs and event management, such as supplying judges and handling show logistics, would not be affected.
• Prohibiting any device, method, practice, or substance applied to any horse that can hide or mask evidence of soring. (Current prohibitions on other items and practices that can reasonably be expected to cause or contribute to soring would be retained in the regulations.)
• Prohibiting all action devices, pads, wedges, and substances on the limbs or feet of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses (with exceptions for approved therapeutic uses of pads, wedges, and substances). An action device is any boot, collar, chain, roller, beads, bangles, or other device which
• Replacing the scar rule with language that more accurately describes visible dermatologic changes indicative of soring, and removing the requirement that such changes be bilateral.
• Requiring the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that elects to utilize an APHIS representative or HPI to choose and appoint an additional HPI if more than 100 horses are entered in the event.
• Requiring the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that elects to utilize an APHIS representative or HPI to inspect horses to have at least one farrier physically present if more than 100 horses are entered in the event, or if there are 100 or fewer horses to have a farrier on call within the local area to be present if requested by an APHIS representative or HPI. Farriers would not be required for shows that do not utilize an inspector.
• Adding new reporting and recordkeeping requirements for management of all horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions covered under the Act. These include retaining records for 90 days of any horse allowed to show under therapeutic treatment, informing APHIS and reporting event information at least 30 days in advance of the event, and notifying APHIS of changes to event information at least 15 days in advance of the event. These requirements are intended to prevent disqualified persons and horses from participating in HPA-covered events and to give APHIS sufficient time to schedule an APHIS representative to inspect at the event, if requested.
To restructure part 11, we propose to reserve current §§ 11.2 and 11.7 and remove §§ 11.20, 11.21, 11.22, 11.23, 11.24, 11.25, 11.40, and 11.41 from the regulations. Requirements for event management recordkeeping, records inspection, and reporting included in §§ 11.20, 11.22, 11.23, and 11.24, as well as requirements for transportation of horses in § 11.40, would be included in new sections we propose.
Our proposed changes to the regulations are detailed below.
We would make changes to several terms and definitions in § 11.1 that reflect our proposed changes to the Horse Protection program.
We would amend the definition of
We would revise the definition for
We would remove the definition for
The current definition of
We would add a definition for the term
We propose to add the term
The current definition of
We are proposing to remove the term
We would add the term
The term
We would add the term
The current regulations define
We propose to add a definition for
The term
We propose to retain and revise the current definition of
A definition of
As currently defined in the regulations,
We also propose to add a definition for the term
Current § 11.2, “Prohibitions concerning exhibitors,” lists general and specific prohibitions for any device, method, practice, or substance used on any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore. We propose to move those prohibitions from § 11.2
Current § 11.3 contains the “scar rule,” which refers to the presence of certain types of lesions on the horse's pastern and fore pastern suggesting that a horse has been sored. Horses that do not meet the scar rule criteria are considered to be sore and are subject to all prohibitions of the Act.
We propose to remove the scar rule from this section and include the revised language in proposed § 11.6(a)(22). A full discussion of the proposed changes to the scar rule is included under “Dermatologic Changes and the Scar Rule,” below.
The language we propose to add to revised § 11.3 is based on current § 11.6(c) and amended to prohibit persons from assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with APHIS representatives or HPIs, or in any way influencing attendees of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to do the same. Persons guilty of such violations may be held criminally liable and referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution. These proposed amendments strengthen regulatory protections for the safety of both APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management and engaged in duties at the events listed, as well as the safety of horses and attendees.
Section 11.4 of the current regulations includes requirements regarding inspection of horses by APHIS representatives, as well as detention of horses for inspection if an APHIS representative has probable cause to believe that a horse is sore. We propose to revise § 11.4 to include provisions regarding the status of persons whom USDA has disqualified from showing, exhibiting, selling, or auctioning horses. Provisions for inspection and detention of horses, which currently comprise this section, would be moved to a new § 11.8.
The proposed text for § 11.4 would indicate that any person disqualified from participating in any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction shall not show, exhibit, or enter any horse, directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, corporation, partnership, or other device, and shall not judge, manage, or otherwise participate in events covered by the Act within the period during which the disqualification is in effect. We would add this provision to the regulations to ensure that prohibitions are in place to address attempts by disqualified persons to continue participating in events listed above either directly or indirectly through the aid of other identities or persons.
Section 11.5 currently includes requirements for the management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction to provide APHIS representatives with unlimited access to the grandstands and all other premises of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction, including any adjacent areas under their direction, for the purpose of inspecting horses or records. Management must also provide an adequate, safe, and accessible area for the visual inspection and observation of horses. This section also requires persons having custody of any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction to admit any APHIS representative or DQP appointed by management to all areas of barns, compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, or other grounds or related areas at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction, for the purpose of inspecting any such horse at reasonable times.
We propose changing the heading of § 11.5 to read “Appeal of inspection report” and moving provisions for access to premises and records to a new § 11.9. Revised § 11.5 would provide that any horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, custodian or transporter may appeal inspection report findings all or in part to the Administrator. The appeal would require a written statement contesting the inspection finding(s) and include any documentation or other information in support of the appeal. The appeal would have to be received by the Administrator, preferably by electronic mail, or by U.S. mail,
We note that in current § 11.25, each HIO is required to provide a process in its rulebook, subject to APHIS approval, for alleged violators of the regulations to appeal penalties resulting from inspections. However, as HIOs would no longer play a role in inspections, proposed § 11.5 includes a process for alleged violators to appeal penalties resulting from inspections conducted by APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by management.
In response to the 2016 proposed HPA rule, APHIS received some comments raising due process concerns. The comments included a request that APHIS develop and implement a pre-show process whereby owners and trainers may contest and seek immediate review of a finding that a horse is sore from a decision-maker, and the suggestion that when USDA finds that a horse is sore after being passed by a DQP, the horse should be allowed to be shown until there is a final decision in the matter.
The HPA vests in management the responsibility to disqualify or prohibit a horse from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned following a determination by an inspector that the horse is sore.
We are concerned that the suggestions by commenters on the 2016 proposed rule are not consistent with the intent or language of the Act itself. For instance, if a horse determined by an inspector to be sore is allowed to be shown until a final decision is made, this could undermine Congress's two primary goals in enacting the Act: To eliminate the cruel and inhumane practice of horse soring and to ensure fair competition at horse shows and exhibitions by not permitting sored horses to unfairly compete with horses that are not sore.
In addition to these statutory concerns, the process envisioned by past commenters, or other lengthy processes that could not be completed before a scheduled show or exhibition, as they are currently operated, could strongly incentivize owners to contest findings of soring in order to delay as long as possible any possible disqualification. This could undermine the intent and requirements of the Act for the reasons discussed above.
One possible solution could be to conduct the inspections far enough in advance of the exhibition or show to allow for an opportunity to be heard before the event. However, given the current structure of horse shows and exhibitions, as well as the need to ensure that horses are not sored following an inspection and before a show, this proposal would require significant internal changes and cooperation from the horse industry. Most horse shows and exhibitions are 1-day events that are set up during the day and take place in the early evening. Inspections take place approximately 30 minutes before the horse enters the arena, and immediately following the inspection, the horse enters a supervised warm-up area and does not leave that area until the horse enters the arena to perform. This is to ensure that the horse's conditions do not change following its inspection and before the horse enters the show ring. Under the current structure, there is insufficient time to conduct a review process between the inspection and the horse being exhibited or shown, and it would require a significant change in show and exhibition practices, and possible restructuring of the industry itself, to allow such a process to take place. It would also entail a significant reallocation of existing APHIS resources. We may need to deploy more inspectors to shows, have them arrive earlier, develop monitoring protocols to ensure horses are not sored following inspection but before the event, and provide both personnel and direct and indirect support costs to the review process.
To that end, in order to assess the feasibility of conducting inspections in advance of a show or exhibition in a manner that would afford a pre-show review process while still ensuring that the horse is not subsequently sored after inspection, we request specific public comment on the following:
• Could pre-show inspections still take place in the same physical area as the show or exhibition? If not, where should they take place?
• How early should pre-show inspections take place, in order to ensure time for a review process?
• How should the health and safety of the horse be monitored after the inspection takes place in order to ensure that the horse is not subsequently sored? Who would be responsible for monitoring to ensure that the horse is not subsequently sored?
• What type of review process would be afforded to contest a finding that a horse is sore? Who would decide these matters? What parties should be involved? Do the parties need to be physically present at the site of the show or exhibition?
• What timing mechanisms would need to be in place to ensure the review process can be completed in time for the horse to show, if the initial inspection is overturned? What actions should occur in the event that the review process is not completed before the show or exhibition?
• How would any pre-show review process implicate or interact with the existing reinspection process currently located in section 11.4(h), as proposed for amendment and relocation at section 11.8(h)?
In addition to the alternative that we have identified to address the issue, we acknowledge that there may be other means of addressing the issue that we are not aware of. To that end, we request public comment regarding other possible alternatives, including consideration of regulatory bodies, statutory authorities, or incentives or disincentives, including the withholding or forfeiture of prize money, that could be applied to address the issue.
Current § 11.2 contains prohibitions on the use of certain action devices, equipment, pads, substances, and practices on horses at any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction covered under the Act.
The prohibitions are intended to pertain to the devices, practices, and substances that are used either to sore horses directly or contribute to the act of soring (an example of the latter being a hoof pad that hides a sharp object). Reaction to the pain caused by soring results in the exaggerated chest-high gait prized in certain classes at Tennessee Walking horse and racking horse shows. Chains and other devices, especially those that are heavy or have sharp or rough edges, can inflict pain and exacerbate soring through repeated strikes to the leg while the horse performs, particularly if irritating substances have also been applied to the skin. Pads that cause a horse's foot to strike the ground at an unnatural angle can also induce pain and soring over time, as can heavy pads and horseshoes. Substances can be used to mask the pain a sore horse feels long enough to pass inspection, while dyes and other substances can hide lesions and other signs of soring on the skin. As reflected in the inspection statistics presented above, soring is diagnosed almost exclusively at events featuring Tennessee Walking horses and racking horses that perform in pads and action devices. By comparison, APHIS and DQP inspections at flat-shod events in which horses do not wear pads and action devices rarely find soring violations.
We note that the current regulations do not prohibit all devices—for example, in § 11.2(b), certain rollers, chains, and bell boots weighing 6 ounces or less are permitted, as are certain types of pads. In proposed § 11.6(b), we allow for the restricted use of some items so that events featuring breeds other than Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses may continue using them. APHIS recognizes that action devices and pads are sometimes used for purposes that do not cause soring during training of Morgans, American Saddlebreds, and many other gaited breeds. Applying light chains or other devices on the pastern, for example, creates a sensory, or proprioceptive, reaction that can stimulate front and rear hoof height without pain, and that on rear hooves can increase the range of motion.
The restrictions on pads, devices, and activities listed in current § 11.2(b) make no distinction between breeds that are often diagnosed as sore—Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses—and other gaited breeds that are not known to be sored. As currently permitted under § 11.2(b), many breeds perform in light chains under six ounces and low pads that elevate the heel by less than an inch. We considered prohibiting all non-therapeutic pads, action devices, substances, and other practices for all breeds at all covered events, but in doing so we would unfairly conflate those breeds that do not sore for competitive advantage with those that do.
Accordingly, we propose to revise § 11.6(b) by including a more restrictive list of prohibitions specific to Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. We base our reasons for establishing prohibitions specific to these breeds on several points. As we have noted above, our records show that the clear majority of horses diagnosed by APHIS representatives and DQPs as being sore are Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, specifically those that participate in pads and action devices in certain competitions favoring a high-stepping, accentuated gait. Insofar as APHIS directs most of its compliance inspections toward Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse events, it follows that our records would show that almost all noncompliances we report are among these two breeds. However, based on our informed knowledge about the practices of all breeds performing or exhibiting in the United States, we know that soring in breeds other than Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses confers no significant performance advantage and is therefore rarely if ever practiced. APHIS-Animal Care officials remain updated on the activities of all breed organizations and investigate any allegations or reports suggesting that violations of the Act are occurring within any breed. We invite public comment on any observations persons may have regarding soring in other breeds.
Further, APHIS has observed from its experience in administering and enforcing the Act and regulations (including through compliance inspections, investigations, enforcement of alleged violations, oversight of industry-based inspection programs, and outreach to the horse industry) that a relationship continues to exist between the use of certain permitted devices and instances of soring, notably among Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, when used alone or in conjunction with prohibited substances.
We acknowledge that at many, if not most, shows featuring Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, the majority of entrants are exhibiting or performing with so called “flat-shod” horses (those that do not normally use the pads and action devices this proposed rule would seek to prohibit). Some shows featuring Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses are entirely flat-shod in nature and already prohibit pads and action devices. We note that in 2022, almost 35,000 flat shod entries were inspected by DQPs and APHIS representatives combined, with a compliance rate above 99 percent. We do not consider such shows to be high risk with respect to noncompliance with the Act and regulations.
Under § 11.2(b), the regulations currently allow the use of a chain or other action device on each limb of a horse if the device weighs 6 ounces or less.
Equine veterinarians on the NAS study committee noted that abnormal skin changes seen on the pasterns of Tennessee Walking Horses are not observed on other breeds of horses such as Arabians, American Saddlebreds, and Morgans, which sometimes train with action devices but do not usually wear them when competing. Moreover, action devices used on other breeds typically are of lower weight than those used on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. The committee also noted that Tennessee Walking Horses are often trained with action devices weighing in excess of the 6-ounce action devices currently allowed for competition and concluded that the use of heavier or more cumbersome devices in training may be more likely to contribute to the formation of skin lesions.
NAS' observations regarding action devices and their role in soring are consistent with those of an older but still relevant study
Historically, prohibited substances such as caustic irritants have been applied to the pasterns of some gaited breeds, most commonly Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, until the skin is sensitive and painful to the touch. This process typically takes several days and completed before the horse enters the event grounds. When the horse wears a chain or other action device while performing, it strikes the treated skin, causing pain and a high stepping reaction. Our observations from administering and enforcing the Act have indicated that soring can and does occur in Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses with the use
Under proposed § 11.6(a), “General Prohibitions for All Horses,” we would continue to prohibit any action device, method, practice, or substance to be used on any horse at any horse event covered under the Act if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore or is otherwise used to mask previous and/or ongoing soring.
Proposed § 11.6(b) lists prohibitions that apply to all horses at covered events but which allow for some devices used by some breeds for purposes unrelated to soring, as discussed above.
Under § 11.6(c)(1), we would prohibit all action devices on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, and in paragraph (c)(2) prohibit all artificial extension of the toe length unless the horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment using artificial extension of the toe length. In proposed paragraph (c)(3) we would prohibit all pads and wedges on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, unless the horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment using pads or wedges as approved in writing by a licensed veterinarian. Finally, in proposed paragraph (c)(4), we would prohibit all substances on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale in or on the grounds of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. Explanations for each of these prohibitions is provided below.
In prior rulemakings, APHIS has received a range of comments from members of the gaited horse industry, veterinary professional organizations, animal advocates, and the general public regarding the purposes and effects of such devices, and whether there are minimum weights below which such devices will not cause lesions that constitute soring. Our experience with enforcing the Act indicates that soring can be induced when action devices are used alone or in combination with prohibited substances. We welcome public comment, supported with scientific data or other rigorous evidence, on the effects of action devices used alone or in combination with other training methods.
Section 11.2(b)(8) of the current regulations prohibits pads or other devices on yearling horses (horses up to 2 years old) that elevate or change the angle of such horses' hooves in excess of 1 inch at the heel. Altering the angulation of a horse's feet and legs can cause painful lameness, soreness, and inflammation by transferring concussive impact and weight-bearing pressures to joints and other parts of the horse not normally subjected to these forces. Elevating the foot using stacked hoof pads, or “performance packages,” can also cause an increase in tension in the tendons leading to inflammation, as can extra weight on the horse's foot. Additionally, elevating only the front feet, as is typically done in Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse performance-class competitions using pads, “causes an unnatural angulation of the back and body of the horse, and changes the alignment of the shoulder muscles, the vertebrae, and the pelvis, all of which are then subject to stress, irritation, and inflammation.” (See 53 FR 14780 (April 26, 1988)).
Research undertaken in the above-cited Auburn study indicated that raising a horse's heels through the use of pads alone resulted in swollen flexor tendons and signs of inflammation. The same study also found the ability to detect pressure soring (
Under proposed § 11.6(c)(3), we would prohibit all pads and wedges on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, unless the horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment involving the use of pads or wedges as approved in writing by a licensed veterinarian. APHIS' experience at Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse events indicates that soring continues to occur through the use of performance packages that can introduce unnatural angulations of the foot or hide signs of pressure shoeing. However, we would not have this specific provision become effective until 270 days after promulgation of a final rule, as it takes approximately 6 to 8 months for a padded horse to become acclimated to being flat-shod (
We invite comments on whether this is an appropriate timeframe for transitioning to a prohibition on pads, but underscore that this prohibition is necessary in order for APHIS to enforce the provisions of the Act. APHIS inspection data shows that of the alleged HPA violations documented at events from FY 2017 through 2021, 94 percent involved horses wearing pads.
In proposed § 11.6(b)(9) and (13), we would continue to allow the restricted use of pads at shows without Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, provided that the pads or other devices on horses up to 2 years old that elevate or change the angle of such horses' hooves are not in excess of 1 inch at the heel, and would also continue to allow the use of pads made of leather, plastic, or a similar pliant material.
In proposed § 11.6(c)(2), we would also prohibit all artificial extensions of toe length on Tennessee Walking horses and racking horses, unless the horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment. Toe extensions can be used to sore horses by increasing stress on certain tendons and ligaments. However, similar to what we indicated regarding pads, prohibition of artificial extensions would not become effective until 270 days after promulgation of a final rule, as it takes approximately 6 to 8 months to take the steps needed to re-acclimate a Tennessee Walking horse or racking horse accustomed to going in such extensions to walking and performing without them. As the practice has non-soring uses in other breeds, such as to make safe adjustments to a horse's gait, we will retain the provision in § 11.2(b)(11) to allow artificial extension of the toe length on horses other than Tennessee Walking horses or racking horses, whether accomplished with pads, acrylics or any other material or combinations thereof, provided that it not exceed 50 percent of the natural hoof length as measured from the coronet band, at the center of the front pastern along the front of the hoof wall, to the distal portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the toe.
Under the general prohibitions in current § 11.2(a), a substance must not be used on any horse at any covered event, regardless of breed, if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore.
Numerous substances are used on horses at shows, exhibitions, and sales events for legitimate purposes, among them shampoos, polishes, conditioners, oils, and insect repellents, as well as lubricants that allow action devices to slide on the leg with less friction. For this reason, the specific prohibitions in current § 11.2(b) do not include substances. However, as we mentioned above, at Tennessee Walking horse and racking horse events, we have observed from our experience enforcing the regulations (including through compliance inspections, investigations, enforcement actions, and industry oversight and outreach) that chains, rollers, and similar devices are sometimes used with caustic substances to induce painful lesions and inflammation. Other prohibited substances sometimes detected on horses include masking and numbing agents that temporarily block the pain of soring so inspectors cannot detect pain upon inspection. Specifically, local anesthetic agents such as benzocaine and lidocaine are used to deter detection of soring upon evaluation, as well as dyes and paints to cover evidence of soring.
Even lotions such as skin softeners and conditioners are implicated in soring at Tennessee Walking horse and racking horse events. While these substances do not directly cause soring, their intended use is to diminish the effects of soring. Such substances are used so that when soring is induced, the skin is softer and does not react as badly, thus decreasing the chance of inflammation and a subsequent scar rule violation.
Current § 11.2(c) prohibits all substances on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse while being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale at any covered event, except lubricants such as glycerin, petrolatum, and mineral oil, or mixtures of these. Moreover, these lubricants must be furnished by event management and can only be applied after inspection.
However, data collected by APHIS from 2017 through 2022
Therefore, in proposed § 11.6(c)(4), we would prohibit all substances on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale in or on the grounds of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, regardless of the substance's composition. Lubricants would no longer be allowed to be used with action devices as we also propose to prohibit such devices on these breeds. Given the wide range of substances that can induce or numb pain, or otherwise hide evidence of soring, we consider a prohibition of all substances at shows with Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses to be the best means to reduce incidences of soring in accordance with the HPA.
In proposed new paragraph (b)(21), we would prohibit stewarding of any breed of horse during inspection for soreness. Stewarding involves the use of whips, cigarette smoke, or other threatening actions or paraphernalia to distract a horse from feeling leg pain when palpated during inspection or to otherwise impede the inspection process.
We would also prohibit holding of reins less than approximately 18 inches from the bit shank. The earlier-cited NAS study committee's observation of 61 inspection videos revealed numerous incidents of stewarding during the standing inspection that were not dealt with by the inspector, including holding the reins closer than 18 inches from the bit, often just below or on the shank. In some cases, the committee observed that the horse was restrained with constant tension, often with the reins held in an upward direction, or the reins were pulled sharply. The committee noted that these restraint tactics can create a distraction during the palpation procedure by inducing pain in the oral cavity.
Under current § 11.3 of the regulations, all horses
Paragraph (b) of the scar rule states that “the posterior surfaces of the pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or `pocket' may show bilateral areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or other evidence of inflammation.”
In paragraph (a)(2) of § 11.21, the requirements for inspection of horses by DQPs include an examination to determine whether the horse meets the scar rule criteria. Paragraph (a)(2) states that “[w]hile carrying out the procedures set forth in this paragraph, the DQP shall also inspect the horse to determine whether the provisions of § 11.3 of this part are being complied with, and particularly whether there is any evidence of inflammation, edema, or proliferating granuloma tissue.”
The scar rule is not a part of the Horse Protection Act. In its current form, the scar rule was proposed in 1978 and added to the regulations in 1979.
The Department added that the scar rule it was proposing would allow for normal changes in the skin due to friction and permit thickening of the epithelial layer of the skin in the pastern area, comparing it to “a callous on a workman's hands,” and would also allow for moderate loss of hair on the pastern caused by the friction caused by an action device.
In 2001, APHIS issued a guide
The 2001 guide indicates that APHIS' understanding of scarring had evolved since 1978, such that the Agency now understood that a horse need not bear identical scars on both pasterns in order to be bilaterally scarred. Its issuance also indicates that APHIS believed guidance was warranted at the time to ensure that inspections for violations of the scar rule were correctly and uniformly conducted.
Despite the issuance of the 2001 guide, and the development of subsequent training that supplanted the guide, the scar rule itself remains unchanged in practice from its inclusion in the regulations 44 years ago. Since that time, however, advances in veterinary science as well as technical innovations in imaging and diagnostics have improved our understanding of how soring occurs and our ability to detect it. (As the NAS study notes, even the term “scar rule” has become something of a misnomer, with the obvious bilateral soring lesions and scars seen prior to passage of the Act in 1970 only rarely observed today.)
However, as technical advancements during the intervening period have improved our ability to detect soring, so too have technical advancements improved violators' ability to evade detection of scarring during inspections. APHIS, veterinary organizations, and the horse industry continue to see violators developing new ways to obscure the gross dermatologic indicia of soring, leaving little or no visible lesions on the leg and making it difficult to disqualify a horse under the scar rule as currently written. Violators, for example, have used lasers to smooth out irregularly thickened skin or evidence of chronic inflammation on one pastern of a horse that has been sored bilaterally, leaving only one leg with obvious signs of soring (unilateral), thus allowing the horse to avoid being disqualified under the current bilateral requirement of the scar rule. Requiring that lesions be bilateral in order for a horse to be considered sore under the scar rule has made it less effective against the innovations devised to evade it. In short, it is now clear to the Agency that a horse need not gross dermatologic indicia of soring bilaterally in order for the horse to be sore.
Further, although the existing scar rule specifies regions on the limb (extensor and flexor surfaces, sulcus) on which the scarring must occur for a violation of the scar rule to occur, as the issuance of the 2001 guide illustrates, the boundaries of the regions may not always be clearly and uniformly understood in the absence of guidance. Moreover, an abnormality indicative of soring is not enforceable as a scar rule violation if it appears outside these regions.
The NAS study also found the term “granuloma” to be imprecise in its regulatory use as one of the visible signs of soring during a gross inspection. The study notes that medically, the term is defined as “an inflammatory lesion composed of specific types of leukocytes arranged in a particular way,” and indicates that only a microscopic evaluation of the tissue in question will establish the presence of granulomatous inflammation.
Given the foregoing considerations, we propose updating the scar rule. Accordingly, what had been known as the scar rule would be moved to proposed paragraph (b)(22) of proposed § 11.6, and would be updated to the following: “The forelimbs and hindlimbs of the horse must be free of dermatologic conditions that are indicative of soring. Examples of such dermatologic conditions include, but are
As to the likelihood of accidental abrasions and other skin irregularities being confused for soring, changes in the skin due to soring are fairly distinctive when compared to accidental injuries. When horses are repeatedly sored, the skin on their pasterns will develop thickening that usually is in a ridge pattern and diffuse around the posterior and/or anterior pasterns. An injury is usually a discrete, well-demarcated cut or scar that can be differentiated from the skin changes seen with soring.
In our proposed change to the scar rule, we removed all references to scars and scarring, which is supported by the NAS study's conclusion that “scars have not been documented microscopically in Tennessee Walking Horses that have been found to be sore. A scar is an area of tissue where the normal components and organization of the tissue have been lost and replaced by fibrous connective tissue.”
We also propose removing all requirements that violations of the proposed § 11.6(b)(22) be bilateral in nature given the ability of violators to obscure signs of soring on at least one limb. We also note that it has long been the Agency's understanding, as evidenced in the 2001 guide, that soring may result in dermatologic indicia that is not uniform. Notwithstanding the current scar rule's language, we consider this proposed revision to be consistent with the Act itself. In the definition of “sore” in Section 2 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1821), a horse is considered sore if the agents and other devices listed in the definition and used in the soring are applied, inflicted, injected, or used to or on “any limb of a horse.” This definition, which is fundamental to understanding the Act's requirements regarding soring, clearly allows for diagnoses of soring regardless of the number of limbs involved. Therefore, a horse may be sore if a single limb has been subjected to the use of one of the devices, substances, or practices enumerated in the statutory definition of the term “sore.”
The Agency acknowledges that section 6 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(d)) states that “[i]n any civil or criminal action to enforce this chapter or any regulation under this chapter a horse shall be presumed to be a horse which is sore if it manifests abnormal sensitivity or inflammation in both of its forelimbs or both of its hindlimbs.” However, APHIS considers this provision to mean that a horse must be considered presumptively sore during enforcement actions if it manifests such bilateral sensitivity or inflammation. It does not preclude the Agency from considering a horse sored based on evidence of unilateral soring; again, such an interpretation would cut against the definition of
Regarding our proposal to remove terms describing specific regions of the limb in the revision, we note that the definition of “sore” in the Act also supports this change. The definition accounts for soring being applied, inflicted, injected, or used on any limb of a horse without limiting it to any specific regions of the limb. Moreover, APHIS has found evidence of soring that can be identified through gross examination outside of these specific regions, and, as the 2001 guide illustrates, these regions may not be readily identified in all cases without guidance.
We also propose to remove references to “granulomas” and “proliferating granuloma tissue.” Although the current footnoted definition of “granuloma” in § 11.3 describes visible lesions and inflammation as scar rule violations, we are removing the term to prevent continued confusion with its medical definition as elaborated on in the NAS study.
Finally, we would remove the reference to “uniformly thickened epithelial tissue” on the flexor surface of the pasterns and cite the NAS study as support for this change. The NAS committee reviewed an unpublished but peer-reviewed evaluation (“Stromberg report”)
The pathologists subsequently provided 24 pairs of the pastern samples from their study to Dr. Pamela E. Ginn, a NAS study committee member and board-certified veterinary pathologist, for further review. While Dr. Ginn's initial observations on reviewing the pastern biopsies are similar to those documented by Drs. Stromberg and Cassone in the Stromberg report, Dr. Ginn interprets the significance of the lesions differently. Drawing from her evaluation, the NAS committee reports that the changes of hyperkeratosis and acanthosis, which were prominent in the biopsy specimens, do not normally occur without a previously inflicted injury on the pasterns. While these changes are recognized as secondary, chronic lesions, and do not provide clear evidence of the initial injury to the skin leading to these changes, they correlate with the grossly detectable lesions of irregular epidermal thickening known as lichenification, a pathologic change most often caused by rubbing, scratching, or other repeated trauma to the skin.
The NAS study recommended that the scar rule language should reflect what inspectors see on sored horses during gross examination. We agree with these conclusions and have proposed a set of diagnostic criteria that retains the visual elements of the scar rule detectable by gross examination.
Finally, we wish to note that APHIS does not entirely agree with the NAS study in its evaluation of the scar rule. While the study has provided APHIS with findings instrumental to our proposed changes to the scar rule, we disagree with NAS' statement regarding its enforceability, excerpted here:
The language of the scar rule is based on the assumptions that certain lesions exist microscopically, that those lesions can be detected by gross clinical dermatologic exam, and that the terms used in the scar rule were used appropriately. In addition, it is assumed that the rule can be interpreted and applied in a consistent manner by APHIS veterinary medical officers VMOs and DQPs tasked with examining horses for scar rule violations. None of these assumptions hold true today, and therefore the rule as written is not enforceable.
We hold that the current scar rule is in fact enforceable. One of the NAS study's primary bases for considering the scar rule “unenforceable” is that it relies on a definition of “granuloma” that differs from the commonly accepted medical definition. The use of a regulatory term of art with a defined definition that is different from its ordinary meaning is, however, a well-established and defensible regulatory practice. Additionally, while we agree with the study that, without training and guidance, inspectors could differ in identifying regions of a horse covered by the scar rule, the study ignores the remedial measures that can be used to address this possible discrepancy, such as the issuance of the 2001 guide referenced above. Again, the use of guidance to address issues of possible inconsistent interpretation of the regulations is a well-accepted and long-standing regulatory practice that does not render the regulations themselves “unenforceable.” Finally, as we stated above, NAS indicated that the pathological changes found in the biopsy specimens they examined correlate with grossly detectable lesions of irregular epidermal thickening known as lichenification, most often caused by repeated trauma. We note that the grossly detectable (
In short, although the APHIS Horse Protection program and the NAS study use different terminology, both agree that microscopic, pathological changes to the skin indicative of soring correlate with a visible thickening detectable on gross examination. Such an examination obviously does not reveal microscopic changes in pathology indicative of soring, but it does not need to do so because of the visible changes that correlate with this pathology.
Below is a table outlining other prohibitions for any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction that we would move from current § 11.2 to proposed § 11.6.
In proposed § 11.6(d), we include time restrictions on workouts and performances for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. These restrictions are moved from current § 11.2(d). We would prohibit show or exhibition workouts or performances of 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, as well as working exhibitions of 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses (horses eligible to be shown or exhibited in 2-year-old classes) at horse sales or auctions, that exceed a total of 10 minutes continuous workout or performance without a minimum 5-minute rest period between the first such 10-minute period and the second such 10-minute period, and more than two such 10-minute periods per performance, class, or workout.
We would also include the horse-related information requirements under § 11.2(e) in proposed § 11.6(e). These requirements currently prohibit failing to provide information or providing any false or misleading information required by the Act or regulations or requested by APHIS representatives, by any person that enters, owns, trains, shows, exhibits, transports or sells or has custody of, or direction or control over any horse shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned, or entered for the purpose of being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
We would require that this provision apply to requests by HPIs appointed by management as well as APHIS representatives. This information includes, but is not limited to, information concerning the name, any applicable registration name and number, markings, sex, age, and legal ownership of the horse; the name and address of the horse's training and/or stabling facilities; the name and address of the owner, trainer, rider, custodian, any other exhibitor, or other legal entity bearing responsibility for the horse; the class in which the horse is entered or shown; the exhibitor identification number; and any other information reasonably related to the identification, ownership, control, direction, or supervision of any such horse. In determining whether a horse is sore, it is important for an inspector, whether an APHIS representative or an HPI, to have access to these records, especially if a question of material fact arises regarding whether an observable condition on the horse is the result of soring or some other condition, malady, or infirmity known to the horse's owner and its custodians. We would add to paragraph (e) that failure to provide the information requested may result in termination under § 11.13.
Section 11.4(a) currently includes the requirement that each horse owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction allow any APHIS representative to reasonably inspect such horse at all reasonable times and places the APHIS representative may designate. We would move this requirement to proposed § 11.8(a) and include HPIs appointed by management to make such a designation.
We would also retain the requirement in current § 11.4(b), in which an APHIS representative must notify the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of or responsibility for a horse at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction that APHIS desires to inspect the horse, and that it must not be moved from the horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction until such inspection has been completed and the horse has been released by an APHIS representative. We would include this requirement in proposed § 11.8(b) and add that HPIs may also make the notification that APHIS desires to inspect the horse. We would retain the provision that only an APHIS representative could officially release the horse as this is decision is made on behalf of the Department.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 11.8 would state that for the purpose of inspection, testing, or taking of evidence, APHIS representatives may detain for a period not to exceed 24 hours any horse, at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction, which is sore or which an APHIS representative has probable cause to believe is sore. Such detained horse may be marked for identification and any such markings must not be removed by any person other than an APHIS representative. This requirement is moved from current § 11.4(c). We do not propose to provide HPIs with this authority as it is an official decision to detain property, in which the APHIS representative is acting on behalf of the Department.
In proposed § 11.8(d), we would include requirements for detained horses, moved from current § 11.4(d), which state that detained horses are required to be kept under the supervision of an APHIS representative or secured under an official USDA seal or seals in a horse stall, horse trailer, or other facility with limited access. In addition, APHIS must have at least one representative present in the immediate detention area when a horse is being held in detention. The official USDA
In proposed § 11.8(e), we would include from current § 11.4(e) the requirement that the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of or responsibility for any horse detained by APHIS for further inspection, testing, or the taking of evidence be allowed to feed, water, and provide other normal custodial and maintenance care, such as walking and grooming, for the detained horse. This would be allowed provided that such care is rendered under the direct supervision of an APHIS representative. Additionally, the regulations would allow any non-emergency veterinary care of the detained horse provided that the use, application, or injection of any drugs or other medication for therapeutic or other purposes is rendered by a veterinarian in the presence of an APHIS representative and the identity and dosage of the drug or other medication and its purpose is furnished in writing to the APHIS representative prior to its use, application, or injection. The use, application, or injection of such drug or other medication must be approved by the APHIS representative. This would be an official oversight function limited to officials acting on behalf of the Department. Further, in retaining this requirement from the current regulations, we would replace the term “APHIS Show Veterinarian” in § 11.4(e)(2) with “APHIS representative” for the reasons explained above under “Definitions.”
We would also move to § 11.8(f) the requirement from current § 11.4(f) that APHIS must inform the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations of such alleged violation or violations before the horse is released by an APHIS representative. An HPI would be able to inform the person of this information, although the decision to release the horse from detention would have to be made by an APHIS representative.
Current § 11.4(g) requires that the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any horse that an APHIS representative determines must be detained for examination, testing, or taking of evidence, be informed after such determination is made and must allow the horse to be immediately put under the supervisory custody of APHIS or secured under official USDA seal until the completion of the examination, testing, or gathering of evidence, or until the 24-hour detention period expires. We propose to retain this requirement and include it in § 11.8(g), but to replace “examination” with “inspection” wherever it is used to make the terminology more consistent with its use in other parts of the regulations.
Current § 11.4(h) contains provisions for requesting re-inspection and testing by persons having custody of or responsibility of horses allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or regulations. Proposed § 11.8(h), moved from § 11.4(h), contains provisions for re-inspection and testing and would extend authority to HPIs for certain actions not requiring an official decision or determination. Paragraph (h) would state that the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for any horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or regulations, and who has been notified of such alleged violation by an APHIS representative or HPI as stated in proposed § 11.8(f), may request re-inspection and testing of the horse within a 24-hour period. A re-inspection can only occur under the following conditions: (1) A request is made to an APHIS representative immediately after the horse has been inspected by the representative or an HPI appointed by management and before the horse has been removed from the inspection facilities; (2) an APHIS representative determines that sufficient cause for re-inspection and testing exists; and (3) the horse is maintained under APHIS supervisory custody as prescribed in paragraph (d) of the section until such re-inspection and testing has been completed. We would replace the term “APHIS Show Veterinarian” with “APHIS representative” throughout § 11.8(h) for the reasons explained above under “Definitions.” We would also use the terms “inspection” and “re-inspection” rather than “examination” and “re-examination” for consistency with the regulations. In addition, proposed paragraph (i) would require that the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or responsibility for, any horse being inspected is required to render such assistance, as the APHIS representative or HPI may request, for purposes of the inspection.
Inspector access to premises and records is necessary to ensuring that event management and participants are in compliance with the Act and regulations. In proposed § 11.9, we would include requirements for managers to provide access to premises and records for inspection and for exhibitors to provide access to barns, vans, trailers, stalls, and other locations of horses at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. We would also extend all access to premises and records for the purposes of inspection to HPIs appointed by management. These requirements would be moved from current § 11.5.
Paragraph (a)(1), moved from § 11.5(a)(1), would state that the management of any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management with unlimited access to the grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, grounds, offices, and all other areas of any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction, including any adjacent areas under their direction, control, or supervision for the purpose of inspecting any horses, or any records required to be kept by regulation or otherwise maintained.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would state that the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management with an adequate, safe, and accessible area for the visual inspection and observation of horses. This requirement is moved from § 11.5(a)(2).
In proposed § 11.9(b)(1), we would include the requirement from current § 11.5(b)(1) that each horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, admit any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management to all areas of barns, compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show, exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or related areas at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, for the
Under proposed § 11.9(b)(2), moved from current § 11.5(b)(2), each owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction shall promptly present his or her horse for inspection upon notification, orally or in writing, by any APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by management, that the horse has been selected for inspection for the purpose of determining whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations.
These proposed requirements in § 11.9 would not include references to DQPs, a role which we propose to remove from the regulations and replace with HPIs.
Section 11.6 currently contains horse inspection space and facility requirements for management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Under the requirements, management must provide sufficient space and facilities for APHIS representatives to perform their duties as prescribed by the Act and regulations. These requirements include ensuring that APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management who inspect horses are provided with a safe area (for example, a well-defined inspection area where inspectors are free from potential harm) to conduct inspections and protection from the elements, and that there are separate waiting areas for horses awaiting inspection and horses that the inspector determines should be detained. As noted in the NAS study, designating an inspection area that has as few distractions as possible will reduce the effect of the environment on the horse's response to pain during examination.
In proposed § 11.10(a)(1), moved from current § 11.6(a), we propose adding that the management of every horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is required to provide, when requested by APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by management, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, sufficient, well-lit space and facilities in a convenient location to the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction arena, so they may carry out their duties under the Act and regulations, whether or not management has received prior notification or otherwise knows that such show, exhibition, sale, or auction may be inspected by APHIS. We added to this provision that the HPI can also make such requests.
In proposed § 11.10(a)(2), event management would need to provide protection from the elements of nature, such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, and windstorms for the inspection area and other areas in which APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management carry out their duties. In current § 11.6(b), this requirement is contingent on whether an APHIS representative requests it, but the proposed revision would require that protection from the elements be available to all inspectors at all times, including HPIs. Protection from the elements is needed in order to facilitate accurate inspections.
Proposed § 11.10(a)(3), moved from § 11.6(c), would require that event management provide a means to control crowds or onlookers in order that APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management may carry out their duties safely and without interference. This requirement is intended to protect inspectors (whether APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by management), staff, and spectators, as well as horses.
Inspection for soreness in horses sometimes requires the use of radiography and other technological equipment that must be connected to an electrical power source. Proposed § 11.10(a)(4), moved from § 11.6(d), would require that an accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical power source be available at the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction site. This provision has been amended so that a site without electrical power is no longer an option needing to be requested by APHIS. If fixed electrical service is not available, event management would be required to provide other means for electrical power such as a portable electric generator.
Finally, § 11.10(a)(5) would require appropriate areas to be provided adjacent to the inspection area for designated horses to wait before and after inspection, as well as an area to be used for detention of horses. An appropriate area would be one with sufficient space for the horses and separated from onlookers. This requirement is moved from current § 11.6(e), amended to include separation from onlookers.
We would add to proposed § 11.10(b) a provision that, except for the other persons listed below, only a management representative, HPIs appointed by management, and APHIS representatives be allowed in the warm-up and inspection area. Each horse in the designated warm-up area may be accompanied by no more than three individuals, including the person having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse, the trainer, and the rider. Each horse in the inspection area may only be accompanied by the person having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse. No other persons would be allowed in the warm-up or inspection areas without prior approval from an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
We are proposing this provision because our experience has shown that people congregating in designated inspection and warm-up areas can impede the ability of inspectors and APHIS representatives to perform their duties, and could be used to attempt to intimidate inspectors or event officials. Another safety concern is having large groups of people massed in an area where multiple horses are warming up.
Under § 11.20 of the current regulations, the management of a horse show, exhibition, sale or auction that does not appoint a DQP to conduct inspections is responsible for identifying all horses that are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations, and must disqualify or disallow any horses which are sore or otherwise in violation from participating or competing in any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. If event management does not appoint qualified inspectors, management can be held liable for the failure to disqualify a sore horse from participating in a covered event.
Under this proposal, HPIs would replace the current role played by DQPs. Management could also request that an APHIS representative conduct inspections instead of an HPI. Under proposed § 11.16(a)(6), management of a covered horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction would have to contact APHIS at least 30 days in advance of the event and announce their intention either to request an APHIS representative or appoint an HPI to conduct inspections, or to have no inspector, or to request a
In proposed § 11.13(a), we would include requirements from current § 11.20(a), in that the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction which does not utilize an APHIS representative or HPI is responsible for identifying all horses that are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations, and must disqualify or prohibit any horses which are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations from participating or competing in any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Under proposed § 11.13(a), horses entered for sale or auction at a horse sale or horse auction must be, as appropriate, identified as sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations prior to the sale or auction and, as required by law, prohibited from entering the sale or auction ring. Sore horses or horses otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations that have been entered in a horse show or exhibition for the purpose of show or exhibition must be identified and disqualified prior to the show or exhibition. Any horses found to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations during actual participation in the show or exhibition must be removed from further participation immediately (
We acknowledge concerns that management of some events may forego appointing an APHIS representative or HPI to inspect horses, but in doing so they are legally liable for any sored horses participating in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Shows without inspectors are more likely to be attended and inspected by APHIS representatives, particularly if APHIS determines the event poses a higher risk of sored horses participating. We noted above that shows featuring Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses performing in pads and action devices have historically posed a much higher risk of soring, and accordingly we would focus our resources on them. Events featuring horses of other breeds, particularly those shown or performing without pads and action devices, pose a very low risk of soring. We invite comments on which horse events covered under the Act APHIS should focus on with respect to compliance risks, particularly events that choose to forego an inspector.
If event management requests an APHIS representative be appointed to conduct inspections on a certain date and no such representatives are available, event management could instead choose and appoint an HPI to inspect horses. If management determines that no HPIs are available on the desired date, management could request that APHIS consider granting a variance to proceed with the show or sale without an inspector, as proposed in § 11.16(a)(6).
When management requests an APHIS representative to inspect an event, the Agency would choose the representative. If management opts to appoint an HPI, management would choose the HPI from a list maintained on the APHIS Horse Protection website.
Proposed § 11.13(b) includes requirements moved from current § 11.20(b), and lists provisions for horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions at which management utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI to conduct inspections. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would state that the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI must not take any action which may interfere with or influence the APHIS representative or HPI in carrying out their duties.
In paragraph (b)(2), we would require that the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that utilizes an HPI to inspect horses shall appoint at least 2 HPIs when more than 100 horses are entered. We note that in current § 11.20(c), 2 DQPs are required for inspections when more than 150 horses are entered in an event. We determined that limiting the number of horses to 100 or fewer for one HPI in this proposal would allow that individual to inspect horses more thoroughly and manageably. Additionally, we considered the fact that relatively few horse events covered under the Act involve the participation of 100 or more horses and the vast majority would therefore only require one inspector.
In paragraph (b)(3) of proposed § 11.13, we would require the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI to inspect horses to have at least one farrier physically present if more than 100 horses are entered in the event. If 100 or fewer horses are entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction the management would have to, at minimum, have a farrier on call within the local area to be present, if requested by an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management. Because we would continue to allow the use of pads and wedges for therapeutic treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, it is necessary for management to make a farrier available to assist with inspections of horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions in case a pad or wedge needs to be removed as part of an inspection.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(4) of § 11.13, management is required to prevent tampering with any part of a horse's limbs or hooves in such a way that could cause a horse to be sore after an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management has completed inspection and before participating in a show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
The current regulations in § 11.20(b)(1) provide a means for event management to notify the Department regarding a DQP when they consider the performance of the DQP to be inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory. Under proposed § 11.13(b)(5), we would provide a similar opportunity for management to address concerns regarding the performance of an HPI utilized to conduct inspections. If management is dissatisfied with the performance of a particular HPI, management would need to notify, in writing, the Administrator as to why they believe the performance of the HPI was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory. It is in the best interests of management to notify APHIS as soon as possible so that the Agency can gather relevant information and interview witnesses before recollections are lost to time. If the Agency determines the HPI's performance was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory, this could be addressed prior in a timely manner.
Current § 11.20(b)(1) also requires that “[m]anagement which designates and appoints a DQP shall immediately disqualify or disallow from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned any horse identified by the DQP to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations or any horse otherwise known by management to be sore or in violation of the Act or regulations.” Under proposed § 11.13(b)(6), we would similarly require that management that utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI would have to immediately disqualify or prohibit from showing, exhibition, sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse identified by the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations and any horse otherwise known by management to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations.
Under proposed § 11.13(c)(1), management at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions would be required to ensure that no devices or substances prohibited under proposed § 11.6 are present in the horse warm-up area. This provision would ensure that such devices are not being used for any purposes contributing to soring in the warm-up area. Paragraph (c)(2) would require that management review the orders of the Secretary disqualifying persons from showing or exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, and disallow the participation of any such person in any such event for the duration of the period of termination.
Management would also be required to verify the identity of all horses entered in the show, exhibition, sale, or auction under proposed § 11.13(c)(3), with acceptable methods of identification being: (1) A description sufficient to identify the horse, including, but not limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive markings, and unique and permanent forms of identification when present (
Under proposed § 11.14(a), moved from current § 11.22(a), management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses would be required to maintain all records for a minimum of 90 days following the closing date of the show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Records required to be kept by event management in proposed § 11.14(a) would also include those of horses disqualified from participating, which are currently required to be kept by management and submitted to APHIS under § 11.24(a). These records are required to contain the name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse disqualified or prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action, as well as the name and address of the person designated by the management to maintain the records required. Finally, if management has appointed an HPI to conduct inspections at the event, the name and address of each HPI appointed to conduct the inspections would be required.
In the current regulations, there are no recordkeeping requirements for horses under the care of a licensed veterinarian and requiring therapeutic treatment using pads or other restricted or prohibited advices. Proposed § 11.14(b) would require that the management of any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction that allows any horse to be shown, exhibited or sold with devices, pads, substances, applications, or other items restricted under proposed § 11.6 for therapeutic treatment must maintain the following information for each horse receiving the therapeutic treatment for a period of at least 90 days following the closing date of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction: (1) The name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse receiving therapeutic treatment; (2) the name, address, and phone number of the licensed veterinarian providing the therapeutic treatment; (3) the State and license number of the licensed veterinarian providing the therapeutic treatment; and (4) the name and address and phone number of the licensed veterinarian's business. Finally, the records would also need to contain a description of the disease, injury, or disorder for which the treatment is given, to include at minimum the starting date of treatment, prescription or design of the treatment plan, and expected length of treatment, including an estimate of when it is anticipated to be discontinued. We are applying this recordkeeping requirement to all horses participating in events covered under the Act to ensure that any such horses under therapeutic care involving restricted or prohibited items in proposed§ 11.6 are receiving legitimate veterinary treatment and are not being sored.
Under proposed § 11.15, moved from current § 11.23(a), the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction would be required to permit any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management, upon request, to examine and make copies of all records pertaining to any horse that are required in the regulations or otherwise maintained during business hours or agreed upon times. In addition, a room, table, or other facilities necessary for proper examination and copying of such records would need to be made available to the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
Proposed § 11.16(a) requires that the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction notify the Administrator of the event by mail, fax, or email not less than 30 days before it occurs and submit the following information: (1) The name and address (including street address and ZIP Code) of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction; (2) the name, address, phone number (and email address, if available) of the event manager; (3) the date(s) of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; (4) a copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction program, if any such program has been prepared; and (5) anticipated or known number of entries.
Also, paragraph (a)(6) would require event management to provide information on whether they are requesting an APHIS representative to perform inspections at the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; or, if not, whether they have chosen and appointed an HPI to inspect
The 30-day notice requirement is not currently in the regulations, and has been proposed to give APHIS advance notice of the event and sufficient time to arrange for an APHIS representative to be present to inspect horses, if requested by event management. APHIS would also reserve the right to attend and conduct inspections at such events unannounced.
Proposed § 11.16(b) requires that at least 15 days before any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is scheduled to begin, the management of the event must notify APHIS of any changes to the information required to be submitted to APHIS under proposed § 11.16(a) by mail, fax, or email. We included this provision so that APHIS would have knowledge of any changes to the event, such as a change in the number of horses participating or the addition of show classes, that could potentially affect inspections and compliance. We assume that no changes have occurred to the submitted information unless we receive notification to the contrary.
Under paragraph (c) of proposed § 11.16, within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the management of such an event is required to submit to APHIS the records required by § 11.14 by mail, fax, or email. Event information already submitted in accordance with § 11.16(a) (information to be submitted at least 30 days before the event) would not need to be submitted again.
Under paragraph (d) of proposed § 11.16, management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction which does
Under proposed § 11.17, moved from current § 11.40, we would require that each person who ships, transports, or otherwise moves, or delivers or receives for movement, any horse with reason to believe such horse may be shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, must allow and assist in the inspection of such horse at any such horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to determine compliance with the Act and regulations. The person would also need to furnish to any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management upon their request the following information: (1) Name and address of the horse owner and of the shipper, if different from the owner or trainer; (2) name and address of the horse trainer; (3) name and address of the carrier transporting the horse and of the driver of the means of conveyance used; (4) origin of the shipment and date thereof; and (5) destination of the shipment.
We would include the provision in proposed § 11.18(a) that the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction may utilize an APHIS representative or an HPI to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for compliance with the Act or regulations.
In proposed § 11.18, paragraph (b), we would include the requirement that if management elects to utilize an HPI to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for compliance with the Act or regulations, the HPI must currently be authorized by APHIS pursuant to § 11.19 of the regulations to perform this function.
In proposed paragraph (c), we would include the provision that the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction must not utilize any person to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of determining compliance with the Act and regulations, if that person has not been authorized by APHIS or if that person has been disqualified by the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with section 4 (15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act, to make such detection, diagnosis, or inspection.
We would include a provision in proposed paragraph (d) providing that, after the effective date of the final rule, assuming this rulemaking is finalized, only APHIS representatives and HPIs as defined in § 11.1 must be utilized by management to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or otherwise inspect horses for compliance with the Act or regulations. Any DQPs seeking to continue inspecting or other persons wishing to become inspectors after the effective date of this rule must apply to APHIS and meet eligibility qualifications for authorization included in proposed § 11.19.
Under the current regulations in § 11.7, HIOs operating APHIS-certified DQP programs are responsible for selecting, training, evaluating, licensing, and disciplining DQPs. When an HIO requests certification of its DQP program, APHIS requires the HIO to submit criteria it intends to use to select DQP applicants, as well as training plans, standards of conduct expected of DQPs, and other materials listed in § 11.7(b).
We propose to have APHIS assume the training and authorization of inspectors, which involves removing and reserving § 11.7 and proposing new requirements for inspectors in a new § 11.19. Based on the conclusions of the USDA-OIG audit and the NAS study discussed above, as well as our own observations made in the course of administering the Horse Protection program, we determined that the current regulations delegating DQP training and licensing responsibilities to HIOs were not addressing the conflicts of interest and inadequate training resulting in a failure to diagnose sored horses, and that APHIS having a direct regulatory role in these functions would best achieve the aim of eliminating soring.
Section 11.7(a) of the current regulations lists the basic qualifications required of DQPs. In brief, persons are eligible to be licensed as DQPs if they are: (1) licensed veterinarians with equine experience, or (2) farriers, horse trainers, or other knowledgeable horsemen whose experience and training qualify them for positions as HIO stewards or judges and who have been formally trained and licensed as DQPs by an APHIS-certified HIO.
DQPs are not evaluated and licensed by APHIS for their suitability as
Proposed § 11.19 includes the qualifications required of persons who are applying to APHIS as HPI candidates. Applicants would be required to show that they meet all qualifications in two tiers, designated as Tier 1 and Tier 2. As we explain below, an applicant must meet the Tier 1 requirement as a prerequisite to be further evaluated under Tier 2 requirements. We invite comment on the clarity of the proposed process, and/or the utility of a tiered process for evaluating HPI applicants as proposed, including suggestions for simplifying it or replacing it with an altogether different process.
Prior to authorization, APHIS would ensure that inspectors are sufficiently trained and qualified to perform inspections and, once authorized, that they observe all standards of conduct and perform their duties consistent with enforcing the Act and regulations. All applicants would be required to submit an HPI application to APHIS using guidance provided on the APHIS Horse Protection Program website.
Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed § 11.19 lists the qualifications of Tier 1, which would require that the applicant be a veterinarian, except that veterinary technicians and persons employed by State and local government agencies to enforce laws or regulations pertaining to animal welfare may also be authorized if APHIS determines that there is an insufficient pool of veterinarians among HPIs and applicants to be HPIs.
Unlike the current DQP eligibility qualifications in § 11.7(a), proposed Tier 1 includes no provision for HPI eligibility for farriers, horsemen, and other laypersons with industry experience. As expressed by the USDA-OIG audit report and NAS study and supported by all major veterinary organizations, licensed veterinarians with equine experience are best qualified to detect soring in horses. Among other advantages, their medical training in anatomy and physiology affords them the ability to discern signs of soring in a horse that may be missed by experienced inspectors who lack such intensive training. In addition, licensed veterinarians in the United States are bound by their profession to ethical codes of conduct established by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and supported by other veterinary organizations. Under the AVMA principles for veterinary medical ethics, veterinarians are required to avoid conflicts of interest that put financial or other considerations ahead of animal welfare and the best interests of the animal involved. For these reasons, we are proposing the Tier 1 veterinary requirement.
However, we acknowledge that given the number and geographical distribution of veterinarians in the United States, there may be an insufficient number of such veterinarians with equine experience applying to be authorized as HPIs, with several commenters on the 2016 proposed rule raising the same concern. Other public comments we received rightly noted that veterinarians, when available, could charge more for their time than could veterinary technicians or other qualified non-governmental persons, resulting in higher costs that may be prohibitive for smaller horse shows and exhibitions. Under this proposal, shows and sales opting to appoint an APHIS representative would incur no such costs.
The Act itself does not mandate that “persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore” have formal veterinary training, and accordingly some commenters on the 2016 rule contended that many experienced veterinary technicians and DQPs are as sufficiently able as veterinarians to diagnose sored horses. We partially agree, insofar as degreed and accredited veterinary technicians possess a level of medical training that, when combined with APHIS training, can qualify them to be authorized as HPIs. We also believe that making authorization available to qualified veterinary technicians under proposed Tier 1, if needed, would result in a sufficient pool of candidates applying to be HPIs, given that we are also proposing to allow management to request inspection directly by APHIS representatives. As a result, we would not seek applications from persons lacking formal veterinary medical or technical credentials regardless of their experience as DQPs. By considering veterinary technicians and qualified State and local animal control officials
If an applicant meets the qualifications in Tier 1, APHIS would then evaluate whether a candidate meets the qualifications listed in Tier 2, which we include in proposed paragraph (a)(2). Guidance explaining details of these qualifications would be posted to the APHIS Horse Protection website.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the Tier 2 qualifications, APHIS would require the applicant to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science and applicable principles of equine science, welfare, care, and health to determine that the applicant can consistently identify equine soring and soring practices. The current regulations do not specifically require that inspectors demonstrate this knowledge during evaluation of their application. While an HIO could establish this application requirement as part of its certified DQP program, APHIS cannot confirm that the HIO is actually enforcing the requirement under the current regulations.
In proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii), we would require that an HPI applicant not have been found to have violated any provision of the Act or the regulations in this part occurring after July 13, 1976,
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii), we would require that the applicant, as well as the applicant's immediate family and employer, not participate in the showing, exhibition, sale, or auction of horses or act as a judge or farrier, or be an agent of management. The current regulations in § 11.7(d)(7)(i) prohibit a DQP from exhibiting, selling, auctioning, or purchasing any horse sold at any horse show, sale, or auction at which he or she has been appointed to inspect horses, and paragraph (d)(7)(ii) prohibits a DQP from inspecting horses at any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction in which a
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv), we would require that the applicant must not have been disqualified by the Secretary from performing diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act, which is similar to the current requirement in paragraph (c)(6) in which HIOs must not license such persons.
In paragraph (a)(2)(v) of proposed § 11.19, we would require that the applicant must not have acted in a manner that calls into question the applicant's honesty, professional integrity, reputation, practices, and reliability relative to possible authorization as an HPI. We believe that such in-depth screening to determine an applicant's suitability is only possible if APHIS directs the application process and decides whether to authorize a person to conduct inspections.
Applicants screened under Tier 2 would not be considered to be authorized as HPIs if any of the following sources of evidence in proposed paragraph (a)(2)(V) raises questions about their suitability.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(A), we would review criminal conviction records, if any, that may indicate the applicant lacks the honesty, integrity, and reliability to appropriately and effectively perform HPI duties.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B) would allow APHIS to review records of the person's actions while participating in Federal, State, or local veterinary programs when those actions reflect on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(C), APHIS would review judicial determinations in any type of litigation adversely reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
Finally, under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(D), APHIS would review any other evidence reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant to perform HPI duties.
Current § 11.7(b) contains several specific training requirements that HIOs are required to provide to DQPs. As APHIS would train all HPIs to perform inspection duties, we propose to include in paragraph (b) of § 11.19 the requirement that all applicants selected as candidates will complete a formal training program administered by APHIS prior to authorization. APHIS would train HPIs using professionally recognized, science-based approaches to detecting soring, many of which are discussed in the above-mentioned NAS study. Continual training of HPIs as APHIS determines to be necessary would be a condition of maintaining authorization to inspect horses. Additional details of the training program would be available on the APHIS Horse Protection website.
In proposed § 11.19, paragraph (c), we would state that APHIS will maintain a list of all HPIs on the APHIS Horse Protection website. The list would also be available by writing to APHIS via email or U.S. mail. Event management would appoint an HPI of their choosing from the list.
As current paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of § 11.7 pertain to requirements based on HIO licensure of DQPs, these would not be retained in the regulations. However, paragraph (f) provides a process for canceling a DQP license and for appealing such a cancellation. We consider it necessary in accordance with the Act to provide similar means in this proposal for HPIs to appeal disqualification of their authorization. As APHIS would have sole responsibility for granting or denying applications for HPI authorization, we would extend the appeals process to apply to denials of applications for authorization.
In proposed § 11.19, we are including an appeals process for any applicant whose application for authorization has been denied. We are also including a process for authorized HPIs who are being disqualified from inspecting horses to receive notice and opportunity for a hearing before a final decision for disqualification is rendered. We propose that APHIS may deny an applicant for any of the reasons outlined in paragraph (a). We also propose that APHIS may permanently disqualify an HPI, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, who fails to inspect horses in accordance with the procedures prescribed by APHIS or otherwise fails to perform duties necessary for APHIS to enforce the Act and regulations.
We propose in paragraph (d)(1) that APHIS may deny an application to be authorized as an HPI for any of the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) of § 11.19. In such instances, the applicant would be provided written notification of the grounds for the denial. The applicant may appeal the decision, in writing, within 30 days after receiving the written denial notice. The appeal would need to state all of the facts and reasons that the person wants the Administrator to consider in deciding the appeal. As soon as practicable, the Administrator would grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision.
We propose in paragraph (d)(2) that APHIS may permanently disqualify any HPI who fails to inspect horses in accordance with the procedures prescribed by APHIS or otherwise fails to perform duties necessary for APHIS to enforce the Act and regulations, after notice and opportunity for a hearing. Requests for hearings and the hearings themselves would be in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of Agriculture in subpart H of part 1, subtitle A, of 7 CFR.
Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, APHIS has considered other alternatives to this proposed action.
As we have noted, APHIS has implemented numerous program-based initiatives within the current regulatory regime in its attempt to eliminate soring, including ensuring that DQPs receive the training needed to inspect horses responsibly and accurately. From the 2010 issuance of the OIG audit report to the present, APHIS' efforts to curb soring have included issuing enforcement warning letters to HIOs and DQPs, increasing oversight of DQP inspections, and sending VMOs to observe events having a higher likelihood of sored horses being present. APHIS has also worked to build trust with the industry by funding joint trainings with HIOs on proper inspection procedures, arranging clinics for the public to learn about inspections and ask questions, and transitioning primary enforcement to DQPs such that VMOs would not re-inspect a horse that a DQP finds noncompliant. In addition, APHIS has funded prohibited substance testing and limited the number of rule updates to HIOs between show seasons so that DQPs are not overly burdened with new information.
However, given the rates of noncompliance found in inspections between 2017 and 2022, our programmatic attempts to strengthen the program under the current regulations have not produced meaningful reductions in the number of sored horses appearing in shows and other HPA-covered events, nor has increased enforcement significantly deterred the practice. Even when DQPs have the skills needed to accurately diagnose horses for soring, which many demonstrate in the presence of APHIS
We acknowledge that some regulations are in place to address these conflicts. Under paragraph (d) of § 11.7, HIOs operating an APHIS-certified DQP program are required to promulgate standards of conduct, including prohibiting DQPs from inspecting at events at which horses owned by them are participating. This applies also to members of their family or their employers. However, even if the HIO reliably enforces these standards, conflicts of interest extend well beyond those of family and employer, to business and other relationships among persons active in the industry who consider soring their horses a means to gain competitive advantage.
Through this proposed rule, we would amend the regulations to transfer from HIOs to APHIS the task of screening, training, and authorizing qualified persons to inspect horses for soring. By so doing, APHIS would be better positioned to ensure that inspectors are screened for conflicts of interest and could take immediate disciplinary action if an inspector fails to follow Agency and professional codes of ethical conduct. Also, APHIS could directly deliver to inspectors the proper training needed to conduct science-based inspections for soreness as supported in the NAS committee report.
While we believe the amendments in the 2017 HPA final rule that we are proposing to withdraw could serve as an effective alternative for remedying the problems with enforcement and compliance, and ultimately help to eliminate soring, we consider this latest proposal to be the preferable alternative. Among other changes, both rulemakings move responsibility for training and authorizing inspectors under direct APHIS oversight, and both prohibit the pads, devices, substances, and actions that have long been used to sore Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses.
However, unlike the previous rulemaking, this one draws upon the findings of the recent NAS study to revise the scar rule so that its criteria more accurately describe the dermatological changes associated with soring. Also, by affording event management the option of appointing an APHIS official instead of an HPI to conduct inspections, this proposed rulemaking relieves costs for smaller events choosing to appoint an inspector.
For events that use inspectors, this proposal would require one inspector for every 100 horses participating, while the 2017 final rule only requires one inspector for every 150 horses. This proposal also requires that a farrier be present if more than 100 horses are participating and requires that a farrier be on call if there are 100 or fewer horses. The smaller numbers provide inspectors and farriers with a more manageable workload by which they can thoroughly inspect and diagnose sore horses.
This proposal also sets new management requirements to maintain information for 90 days on the therapeutic use of pads, substances, and other prohibited items on horses at events covered under the Act, and requires that management of any covered event notify APHIS at least 30 days before it begins.
The 2017 final rule limits this requirement to events featuring Tennessee Walking horses and racking horses. These requirements allow APHIS to establish a broader record of events covered under the Act, allowing for adjustments to enforcement should noncompliance with the Act become an issue in current or emerging horse breeds.
Finally, we note that a discussion of the rationale for proposing to withdraw the 2017 HPA final rule is contained in the proposed withdrawal itself.
We believe the changes proposed in this document represent the best alternative option that would satisfactorily accomplish the stated objectives and minimize impacts on small entities. However, we welcome comments from the public on these and other alternatives.
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis also examines the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A summary of the economic analysis is included below. Copies of the full analysis are also available on the
The Horse Protection Act (HPA, or Act, 15 U.S.C. 1821
In September 2010, USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit of the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) enforcement of the HPA. In addition, a 2021 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study examined methods used to inspect horses for soreness and made recommendations. The proposed rule is in response to several findings and recommendations contained in that audit and in the NAS study, as well as in response to data independently obtained by the Agency. The objective of the proposed rule is more effective enforcement of the HPA.
The principal proposed amendment to the Horse Protection regulations is that APHIS would screen, train and authorize qualified persons to conduct inspections at horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions to ensure compliance with the HPA. APHIS would authorize applicants, preferably veterinarians, as Horse Protection Inspectors (HPI)
Currently, horse shows either assume responsibility for conducting preshow inspections for evidence of soring or contract with an APHIS-certified HIO to provide DQPs to conduct inspections. However, the OIG audit discovered conflicts of interest between DQPs, the HIOs that license and hire them, and organizers of the shows and exhibitions that contract with HIOs to provide DQPs. The OIG audit noted that at times DQPs fail to inspect horses adequately or to issue violations in accordance with the regulations. Concurring with the findings of the OIG audit, the NAS study committee concluded that some horses experiencing soreness are not being identified during inspections and strongly recommended that use of DQPs for inspections under the current program be discontinued.
Inspection data compiled by APHIS from fiscal year (FY) 2017 to 2022 show that inconsistencies persist in the number of violations detected by APHIS officials and those issued by DQPs inspecting horses. During this period, APHIS attended about 16 percent of all HPA-covered events featuring Tennessee Walking Horses, racking horses, and other breeds at which horse industry DQPs conducted inspections, performance as well as flat-shod classes. While APHIS attended only a fraction of the events at which DQPs were appointed to inspect horses, APHIS consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance at these events based on its VMO inspection findings. Most horses inspected by APHIS officials at these events were chosen at random, although APHIS chose to inspect some horses for which a suspicion of soring was warranted.
Designated Qualified Persons consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance when APHIS officials were in attendance than when they were not. In FY 2021, for example, if only horses wearing “performance packages” (
In addition, the proposed rule would also prohibit non-therapeutic pads and action devices at all events involving Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, as these items are used to induce or hide soring. The proposed rule would also update the scar rule by including language that better describes visible dermatologic changes and stating that the changes do not have to be bilateral.
An additional amendment to the rule would also require a farrier to be present at shows with 100 or more horses and on-call for shows with fewer than 100 horses if the management of the shows utilize an AHPIS representative or HPI. We welcome public comments on the costs associated with having a farrier at the shows and on-call. Also, for horse shows that utilize an HPI or APHIS representative, if there are more than 100 horses participating in the show, there must be an additional HPI.
The prohibition of pads and action devices does not impose costs on show management or participants. Of these proposed amendments to the Horse Protection regulations, only the amendments requiring a farrier to be present at a show of more than 100 horses, or on call if fewer than 100 horses are participating, may result in additional costs such as record keeping for show management and participants.
Given that event managers may choose to have an APHIS inspector at no cost to them, the proposed rule would impose no additional required costs to horse show management in terms of inspectors.
Currently, horse shows either assume responsibility for conducting preshow inspections for evidence of soring or contract with an APHIS-approved Horse Industry Organization (HIO) to provide Designated Qualified Persons to conduct inspections. HIOs may be able to pass this cost on to the exhibitors and participants in the show. Under the proposed rule, if an APHIS inspector is used, they would no longer have to bear the costs associated with having inspectors at the shows. This could potentially result in cost savings to the HIOs and the exhibitors. The cost of having inspectors at the shows varies by region and ranges from $350 to $23,000 with the average being $700 to $800 per show.
Conversely, it is possible that HPIs will charge more for their inspections than DQPs currently do. The rate that HPIs will charge for their services under the proposed rule, as compared to the current rate of compensation for DQPs mentioned above, is unknown because the rate is negotiated between the inspectors and the management that contracts for their services, and thus not within APHIS' purview. Management may also be able to pass the costs of having inspectors at the shows on to the exhibitors. We welcome public comments to the extent that there may be additional costs or cost savings associated with this proposed rule.
Based on the estimates of an expert elicitation
The proposed rule would result in foregone revenue for most current DQPs, who would not meet APHIS' requirements for HPIs under the terms of the proposed rule. As noted above, the average cost of having inspectors at shows is $700 to $800 per show. With 59 currently authorized DQPs and 300 shows on average per year, this suggests that DQP income is supplemental, rather than a primary source of revenue, for most DQPs. Additionally, APHIS anticipates 30 new initial applications from parties interested in becoming HPIs under the proposed requirements. For new HPIs who were not previously DQPs, this rule would result in new income. We request public comment on this matter.
While the proposed rule would result in better enforcement of the HPA, implementation of the proposed changes would result in additional costs to APHIS in terms of conducting inspections, screening, and training potential HPIs. We expect that APHIS
The benefits of the proposed rule are expected to justify the costs. The proposed changes to the Horse Protection regulations would promote the humane treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses by more effectively ensuring that those horses that participate in exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions covered by the HPA are not sored. This qualitative benefit, enhancing animal welfare, is likely to result in greater public confidence that the animals are being treated humanely.
The proposed rule is not expected to adversely impact the communities in which shows are held because Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse shows are expected to continue. Owners are motivated to show their prized horses and are likely to continue participating in shows. Better enforcement of the HPA is expected to also benefit shows and participants by improving the reputation of the Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse industry. Participation in events may increase if the proposed rule were to result in increased confidence by owners that individuals who intentionally sore horses to gain a competitive advantage are likely to be prevented from participating. Management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions would also benefit from no longer having to bear the costs of compensating inspectors if they use APHIS inspectors.
In an attempt to eliminate soring, APHIS considered several alternatives to the proposed rule. These include programmatic changes such as increased training, issuing enforcement warning letters to HIOs and DQPs, increasing oversight of DQP inspections, and sending VMOs to observe events having a higher likelihood of sored horses being present. APHIS has also worked to build trust with the industry by funding joint trainings with HIOs on proper inspection procedures, arranging clinics for the public to learn about inspections and ask questions, and transitioning primary enforcement to DQPs such that VMOs would not re-inspect a horse that a DQP finds noncompliant. In addition, APHIS has funded prohibited substance testing and limited the number of rule updates to HIOs between show seasons so that DQPs are not overly burdened with new information. These non-regulatory solutions have not meaningfully decreased detections of soring, however.
One alternative that we also considered was to eliminate the use of non-APHIS inspectors and to limit inspectors to APHIS VMOs. While this approach would address conflicts of interest and allow APHIS to have a direct role in managing inspections, we determined that the availability of inspectors could be subject to number of VMOs available at any given time and their geographic distribution. Further, section 4 (15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act provides for “the appointment by the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore . . .,” which precludes assigning an inspector to an event and eliminating any element of choice for event management. Under this proposal, management would be able to choose to appoint an APHIS representative or an APHIS-authorized inspector.
Another alternative considered was implementing our 2017 final rule to revise the HPA regulations. However, we consider this proposed rule preferable to that rule for several reasons. Among them, this rule provides that management may request direct APHIS inspection of a show at no cost to management, an option not provided for in the 2017 final rule despite comments that HPIs could be cost-prohibitive for smaller shows.
We invite public comments on these and other alternatives that may achieve the desired policy objective of the proposed rule.
The entities affected by this rule are likely small by Small Business Administration standards. We invite public comments on the potential impacts on the entities that may be affected by this rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
APHIS has determined that this proposed rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require formal tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. To engage Tribal nations on this rulemaking, APHIS hosted a tribal webinar to discuss the proposed rule, with four attendees participating and no tribal comment. If a Tribe requests consultation, APHIS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Many of the activities described in this proposed rule are currently approved under OMB control number 0579-0056, including the requirement that the management of any event that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses maintain for at least 90 days following the closing date of the event all pertinent records in § 11.22(a), and that within 5 days following the conclusion of any event containing Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, event management must submit to APHIS the information required by § 11.22(a) for each horse excused or disqualified by management or its representatives. In addition, there are seven new information collection and reporting activities. Therefore, in accordance with section 3507(d) of the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Administering the Horse Protection Act (HPA) requires the use of several information collection activities that are currently approved under 0579-0056. The proposed changes to the regulations result in the creation of new reportable activities, as previously mentioned. These activities and any additional ones announced in the final rule resulting from public comment will be scheduled for merger into 0579-0056 after OMB approval.
The seven new activities in this proposed rule change are as follows:
• § 11.13(b)(5)—Event managers will be permitted to submit unsatisfactory performance notices against HPIs performing inspections. APHIS estimates there will be 5 responses per year with 1 hour of burden per response.
• § 11.14(b)—Managers of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that allows any horse to be shown, exhibited or sold with prohibitions for therapeutic treatment will be required to maintain certain information for each horse receiving the therapeutic treatment for a period of at least 90 days following the closing date of a show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Based on the APHIS Horse Protection program's knowledge of the frequency of therapeutic treatments used on horses participating in prior covered events, APHIS estimates there will be 50 responses per year with 1 hour of burden per response. Managers will not have to maintain such records if no horses undergoing therapeutic treatments are in the event.
• § 11.16(a)—Managers of any such show, exhibition, sale, or auction will be required to provide the Administrator information of the event by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email at least 30 days before any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction is scheduled to begin. Such notification would have to include information about the show, information about the anticipated or known number of entries and whether management will allow any horse to be shown, exhibited, or sold with prohibitions under proposed § 11.6 for therapeutic treatment. Finally, the notification will include a request to appoint an APHIS representative if one is needed. This requirement has been added to give APHIS advance notice of the event and sufficient time to arrange for an APHIS representative to be present to inspect horses, if requested by management. APHIS estimates there will be 450 shows per year with 30 minutes of burden per response.
• § 11.16(a)(6)—If neither an APHIS representative nor an HPI is available on the date of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, event management may request a variance. It must be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email to the Deputy Administrator of Animal Care. APHIS estimates there will be 20 requests per year with 1 hour of burden per request.
• § 11.16(b)—Managers of any such show, exhibition, sale, or auction will be required to provide any changes to the event information submitted to the Administrator at least 15 days before the event is to begin. APHIS estimates there will be 300 shows per year with 30 minutes of burden per response.
• § 11.16(c)—Event managers of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses must submit to APHIS within 5 days after the event's conclusion the information required to be maintained by § 11.14. Event information already submitted to APHIS under § 11.16(a) does not need to be sent again. APHIS estimates there will be 300 shows per year with 30 minutes of burden per response.
• § 11.19(a)—APHIS will authorize and train Horse Protection Inspectors. Prospective candidates must submit an application to APHIS and will be evaluated using a 2-tier system of qualifications. APHIS estimates there will be 30 applicants per year with an estimated 1 hour of burden per application.
The proposed changes to the regulations in 9 CFR part 11 authorized by the HPA also include removing regulatory requirements for horse industry organizations and associations and eliminating the role of Designated Qualified Persons as inspectors at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. The burden for these will be transferred Horse Protection Inspectors authorized and trained by APHIS. Activities related to event schedules are event-driven so the total number of estimated responses and burden hours will remain unchanged.
We are soliciting comments from the public and others concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. APHIS estimates that all of the total responses can be processed electronically by email or fax. Respondents are free to maintain required records as best suited for their organization. Details about specific forms for reportable activities can be found in the information collection request supporting statement.
For assistance with E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483, or the person listed under
Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to revise 9 CFR part 11 to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1823-1825 and 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
For the purpose of this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in this section. The singular form shall also impart the plural.
(1) Any person who enters any horse, any person who allows his or her horse to be entered, or any person who directs or allows any horse in his or her custody or under his or her direction, control or supervision to be entered in any horse show or horse exhibition;
(2) Any person who shows or exhibits any horse, any person who allows his or her horse to be shown or exhibited, or any person who directs or allows any horse in his or her custody or under his or her direction, control, or supervision to be shown or exhibited in any horse show or horse exhibition;
(3) Any person who enters or presents any horse for sale or auction, any person who allows his or her horse to be entered or presented for sale or auction, or any person who allows any horse in his or her custody or under his or her direction, control, or supervision to be entered or presented for sale or auction in any horse sale or auction; or
(4) Any person who sells or auctions any horse, any person who allows his or her horse to be sold or auctioned, or any person who directs or allows any horse in his or her custody or under his or her direction, control, or supervision to be sold or auctioned.
(1) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse;
(2) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse;
(3) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used on any limb of a horse;
(4) Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except that such term does not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment was given.
No person shall assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by management, or in any way influence attendees of a horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction or other individuals to do the same.
Any person who has been disqualified by the Secretary from participating in any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction shall not show, exhibit, or enter any horse, directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, corporation, partnership, or other device, and shall not judge, manage, or otherwise participate in events covered by the Act within the period during which the disqualification is in effect.
Any horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, custodian or transporter may appeal all or part of the inspection findings in an inspection report to the Administrator. To appeal, the horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, custodian or transporter must send a written statement contesting the inspection finding(s) and include any documentation or other information in support of the appeal. To receive consideration, the appeal must be received
(a)
(b)
(1) More than one action device permitted under this section on any limb of a horse.
(2) All beads, bangles, rollers, and similar devices, with the exception of rollers made of lignum vitae (hardwood), aluminum, or stainless steel, with individual rollers of uniform size, weight and configuration, provided each such device may not weigh more than 6 ounces, including the weight of the fastener.
(3) Chains weighing more than 6 ounces each, including the weight of the fastener.
(4) Chains with links that are not of uniform size, weight, and configuration; and chains that have twisted links or double links.
(5) Chains that have drop links on any horse that is being ridden, worked on a lead, or otherwise worked out or moved about.
(6) Chains or lignum vitae, stainless steel, or aluminum rollers which are not smooth and free of protrusions, projections, rust, corrosion, or rough or sharp edges.
(7) Boots, collars, or any other devices, with protrusions or swellings, or rigid, rough, or sharp edges, seams or any other abrasive or abusive surface that may contact a horse's leg.
(8) Boots, collars, or any other devices that weigh more than 6 ounces, except for soft rubber or soft leather bell boots and/or quarter boots that are used as protective devices.
(9) Pads or other devices on horses up to 2 years old that elevate or change the angle of such horses' hooves in excess of 1 inch at the heel.
(10) Any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe, and any horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces.
(11) Artificial extension of the toe length, whether accomplished with pads, acrylics, or any other material or combinations thereof, that exceeds 50 percent of the natural hoof length, as measured from the coronet band, at the center of the front pastern along the front of the hoof wall, to the distal portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the toe. The artificial extension shall be
(12) Toe length that does not exceed the height of the heel by 1 inch or more. The length of the toe shall be measured from the coronet band, at the center of the front pastern along the front of the hoof wall to the ground. The heel shall be measured from the coronet band, at the most lateral portion of the pastern, at a 90-degree angle to the ground, not including normal caulks at the rear of a horseshoe that do not exceed
(13) Pads that are not made of leather, plastic, or a similar pliant material.
(14) Any object or material inserted between the pad and the hoof other than acceptable hoof packing, which includes pine tar, oakum, live rubber, sponge rubber, silicone, commercial hoof packing, or other substances used to maintain adequate frog pressure or sole consistency. Acrylic and other hardening substances are prohibited as hoof packing.
(15) Single or double rocker-bars on the bottom surface of horseshoes which extend more than
(16) Metal hoof bands, such as used to anchor or strengthen pads and shoes, placed less than
(17) Metal hoof bands that can be easily and quickly loosened or tightened by hand, by means such as, but not limited to, a wing-nut or similar fastener.
(18) Any action device or any other device that strikes the coronet band of the foot of the horse except for soft rubber or soft leather bell boots that are used as protective devices.
(19) Shoeing a horse, trimming a horse's hoof, or paring the frog or sole in a manner that will cause such horse to suffer, or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to suffer pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. Bruising of the hoof or any other method of pressure shoeing is also prohibited.
(20) Lead or other weights attached to the outside of the hoof wall, the outside surface of the horseshoe, or any portion of the pad except the bottom surface within the horseshoe. Pads may not be hollowed out for the purpose of inserting or affixing weights, and weights may not extend below the bearing surface of the shoe. Hollow shoes or artificial extensions filled with mercury or similar substances are prohibited.
(21) The use of whips, cigarette smoke, or other stewarding actions or paraphernalia to distract a horse or to otherwise impede the inspection process during an examination, including but not limited to, holding the reins less than 18 inches from the bit shank is prohibited.
(22) The forelimbs and hindlimbs of the horse must be free of dermatologic conditions that are indicative of soring. Examples of such dermatologic conditions include, but are not limited to, irritation, moisture, edema, swelling, redness, epidermal thickening, loss of hair (patchy or diffuse) or other evidence of inflammation. Any horse found to have one or more of the dermatologic conditions set forth herein shall be presumed to be “sore” and be subject to all prohibitions of section 6 (15 U.S.C. 1825) of the Act.
(c)
(2) All artificial extension of the toe length is prohibited on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, unless such horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment using artificial extension of the toe length as approved in writing by a licensed veterinarian.
(3) All pads and wedges are prohibited on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, unless such horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment using pads or wedges as approved in writing by a licensed veterinarian.
(4) All substances are prohibited on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale in or on the grounds of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.
(d)
(e)
(a) For the purpose of effective enforcement of the Act: Each horse owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, shall allow any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management to inspect such horse at all reasonable times and places the APHIS representative or HPI may designate. Such inspections may be required of any horse which is stabled, loaded on a trailer, being prepared for show, exhibition, or sale or auction, being exercised or otherwise on the grounds of, or present at, any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or horse auction, whether or not such horse has or has not been shown, exhibited, or sold or auctioned, or has or has not been entered for the purpose of being shown
(b) When any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management notifies the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of or responsibility for a horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or horse auction that APHIS desires to inspect such horse, it shall not be moved from the horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or horse auction until such inspection has been completed and the horse has been released by an APHIS representative.
(c) For the purpose of inspection, testing, or taking of evidence, APHIS representatives may detain for a period not to exceed 24 hours any horse, at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or horse auction, which is sore or which an APHIS representative has probable cause to believe is sore. Such detained horse may be marked for identification and any such identifying markings shall not be removed by any person other than an APHIS representative.
(d) Detained horses shall be kept under the supervision of an APHIS representative or secured under an official USDA seal or seals in a horse stall, horse trailer, or other facility to which access shall be limited. It shall be the policy of APHIS to have at least one representative present in the immediate detention area when a horse is being held in detention. The official USDA seal or seals may not be broken or removed by any person other than an APHIS representative, unless:
(1) The life or well-being of the detained horse is immediately endangered by fire, flood, windstorm, or other dire circumstances that are beyond human control.
(2) The detained horse is in need of such immediate veterinary attention that its life may be in peril before an APHIS representative can be located.
(3) The horse has been detained for a maximum 24-hour detention period, and an APHIS representative is not available to release the horse.
(e) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of or responsibility for any horse detained by APHIS for further inspection, testing, or the taking of evidence shall be allowed to feed, water, and provide other normal custodial and maintenance care, such as walking, grooming, etc., for such detained horse:
(1) Such feeding, watering, and other normal custodial and maintenance care of the detained horse is rendered under the direct supervision of an APHIS representative.
(2) Any non-emergency veterinary care of the detained horse requiring the use, application, or injection of any drugs or other medication for therapeutic or other purposes is rendered by a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine in the presence of an APHIS representative and, the identity and dosage of the drug or other medication used, applied, or injected and its purpose is furnished in writing to the APHIS representative prior to such use, application, or injection by the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine attending a horse. The use, application, or injection of such drug or other medication must be approved by the APHIS representative.
(f) It shall be the policy of an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management to inform the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations of such alleged violation or violations before the horse is released as determined by an APHIS representative.
(g) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any horse or horses that an APHIS representative determines shall be detained for inspection, testing, or taking of evidence pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section shall be informed after such determination is made and shall allow said horse to be immediately put under the supervisory custody of APHIS or secured under official USDA seal as provided in paragraph (d) of this section until the completion of such inspection, testing, or gathering of evidence, or until the 24-hour detention period expires.
(h) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for any horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or regulations, and who has been informed of such alleged violation by an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management as stated in paragraph (f) of this section, may request re-inspection and testing of said horse within a 24-hour period:
(1) Such request is made to an APHIS representative immediately after the horse has been inspected by an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management and before such horse has been removed from the inspection facilities;
(2) An APHIS representative determines that sufficient cause for re-inspection and testing exists; and
(3) The horse is maintained under APHIS supervisory custody as prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section until such re-inspection and testing has been completed.
(i) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or responsibility for, any horse being inspected shall render such assistance, as the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management may request, for the purposes of such inspection.
(a)
(2) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management with an adequate, safe, and accessible area for the visual inspection and observation of horses.
(b)
(2) Each owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall promptly present his or her horse for inspection upon notification, orally or in writing, by any APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by the management that said horse has been selected for inspection for the purpose of determining whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations.
(a) The management of every horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction shall provide, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, sufficient space and facilities for APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management to carry out their duties under the Act and regulations when requested to do so by APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by management, whether or not management has received prior notification or otherwise knows that such show, exhibition, sale, or auction may be inspected by APHIS. With respect to such space and facilities, it shall be the responsibility of management to provide at least the following:
(1) Sufficient, well-lit space in a convenient location to the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction arena, acceptable to APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management, in which horses may be inspected.
(2) Protection from the elements of nature, such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, windstorm, etc.
(3) A means to control crowds or onlookers in order that APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management may carry out their duties safely and without interference.
(4) An accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical power source available at the show, exhibition, sale, or auction site.
(5) Appropriate areas adjacent to the inspection area for designated horses to wait before and after inspection, and an area to be used for detention of horses.
(b) Other than the persons noted below, only a management representative, HPIs appointed by management, and APHIS representatives are allowed in the warm-up and inspection areas. Each horse in the inspection area may only be accompanied by the person having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse. Inspected horses shall be held in a designated area under the observation by a management representative and shall not be permitted to leave the designated area before showing. Each horse in the designated warm-up area may be accompanied by no more than three individuals, including the person having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse, the trainer, and the rider. No other persons are allowed in the warm-up or inspection areas without prior approval from an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
(a)
(b)
(2) The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that utilizes an HPI to inspect horses shall appoint at least 2 HPIs when more than 100 horses are entered.
(3) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that utilizes APHIS representatives or HPIs to inspect horses shall have at least one farrier physically present if more than 100 horses are entered in the event. If 100 or fewer horses are entered in the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, the management shall, at minimum, have a farrier on call within the local area to be present, if requested by an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
(4) After an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management has completed inspection, management must prevent tampering with any part of a horse's limbs or hooves in such a way that could cause a horse to be sore.
(5) If management is dissatisfied with the performance of a particular HPI, management should promptly notify, in writing, the Administrator as to why management believes the performance of the HPI was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory.
(6) Management that utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI shall immediately disqualify or prohibit from showing, exhibition, sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse identified by the APHIS representative or HPI to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations and any horse otherwise known by management to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations. Should management fail to disqualify or prohibit from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned any such horse, the management is responsible for any liabilities arising from the showing, exhibition, sale, or auction of said horses.
(c)
(2) Review the orders of the Secretary disqualifying persons from showing or exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction and disallow the participation of any such person in any
(3) Verify the identity of all horses entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Acceptable methods of identification are as follows:
(i) A description sufficient to identify the horse, including, but not limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive markings, and unique and permanent forms of identification when present (
(ii) Electronic identification that complies with ISO standards; or
(iii) An equine passport issued by a State government and accepted in the government of the State in which the horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction will occur.
(a) The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses shall maintain for a minimum of 90 days following the closing date of a horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction all records containing:
(1) The dates and place of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
(2) The name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the sponsoring organization.
(3) The name and address of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction management.
(4) The name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of each show judge.
(5) A copy of each class or sale sheet containing the names of horses, the registration number of the horse (if applicable), the names and addresses (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse owner, the exhibition number and class number unique to each horse, or sale number assigned to each horse, the show class or sale lot number, and the name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the person paying the entry fee and entering the horse in a horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
(6) A copy of the official horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction program, if any such program has been prepared.
(7) A copy of the official judge's or scoring card(s) for each horse show class containing Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses to include the place each horse finished in the class.
(8) The name and any applicable registration name and number of each horse, as well as the names and addresses (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the owner, the trainer, the custodian, the exhibitor and the location (including street address and ZIP Code) of the home barn or other facility where the horse is stabled.
(9) The name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse disqualified or prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action.
(10) Name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the person designated by the management to maintain the records required by this section.
(11) The name and address of each HPI appointed by management to conduct inspections at the event, if an HPI was appointed.
(b) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that allows any horse to be shown, exhibited or sold with devices, pads, substances, applications, or other items restricted under § 11.6 for therapeutic treatment must maintain the following information for each horse receiving the therapeutic treatment for a period of at least 90 days following the closing date of a show, exhibition, sale, or auction:
(1) The name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse receiving therapeutic treatment.
(2) The name, address (including street address and ZIP Code), and phone number of the licensed veterinarian providing the therapeutic treatment.
(3) The state and license number of the licensed veterinarian providing the therapeutic treatment.
(4) The name and address (including street address and ZIP Code) and phone number of the licensed veterinarian's business.
(5) A description of the disease, injury, or disorder for which the treatment is given, to include at minimum:
(i) Start date of treatment.
(ii) Prescription or specific design and prescription (for example, as to the height, weight, and material of a therapeutic pad) of the treatment plan.
(iii) Expected length of treatment period and an estimation of when treatment will be discontinued.
The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction shall permit any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management, upon request, to examine and make copies of any and all records pertaining to any horse that are required in the regulations or otherwise maintained, during business hours, or such other times as may be mutually agreed upon. A room, table, or other facilities necessary for proper examination and copying of such records shall be made available to the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
(a) At least 30 days before any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction is scheduled to begin, management must notify the Administrator of such event by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email. Such notification must include:
(1) The name and address (including street address and ZIP Code) of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
(2) The name, address, phone number (and email address, if available) of the event manager.
(3) The date(s) of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
(4) A copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction program, if any such program has been prepared.
(5) Anticipated or known number of entries.
(6) Whether management requests an APHIS representative to perform inspections at the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; or, if not, whether management has chosen and appointed an HPI to inspect horses, or will have no inspector. If neither an APHIS representative nor an HPI is available on the date of the event, event management may request a variance. Variances must be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email to the Deputy Administrator of Animal Care at least 15 days before the event and state the reason for requesting the variance.
(7) Whether management will allow any horse to be shown, exhibited or sold with prohibitions under section § 11.6 for therapeutic treatment.
(b) At least 15 days before any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction is scheduled to begin, the management of any such horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction must notify the Administrator of any changes to the information required under § 11.16(a) by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email.
(c) Within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the management of such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall submit to the Administrator the information required to be maintained by § 11.14 by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email. Event information already submitted to APHIS under paragraph (a) of this section does not need to be sent again.
(d) Within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction which does not include Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the management of such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall submit to the Administrator the following information: Any case where a horse was prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it was found to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations. Information will include at a minimum the name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse disqualified or prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reason(s) for such action.
Each person who ships, transports, or otherwise moves, or delivers or receives for movement, any horse with reason to believe such horse may be shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, shall allow and assist in the inspection of such horse at any such horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction to determine compliance with the Act and regulations and shall furnish to any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management upon their request the following information:
(a) Name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse owner and of the shipper, if different from the owner or trainer;
(b) Name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse trainer;
(c) Name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the carrier transporting the horse, and of the driver of the means of conveyance used;
(d) Origin of the shipment and date thereof; and
(e) Destination of shipment.
(a) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction may elect to utilize an APHIS representative or HPI to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for compliance with the Act or regulations.
(b) If management elects to utilize an HPI to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for compliance with the Act or regulations, the HPI must currently be authorized by APHIS pursuant to § 11.19 to perform this function.
(c) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction shall not utilize any person to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of determining compliance with the Act and regulations, if that person has not been authorized by APHIS or if that person has been disqualified by the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with section 4 (15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act, to make such detection, diagnosis, or inspection.
(d) After [effective date of the final rule], only APHIS representatives and HPIs as defined in § 11.1 shall be utilized by management to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or otherwise inspect horses for compliance with the Act or regulations. Any other persons seeking to continue inspecting or to become inspectors after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] must apply to APHIS and meet eligibility qualifications for authorization included in § 11.19.
APHIS will authorize HPIs after the successful completion of training by APHIS. The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction may appoint HPIs holding a current authorization to detect and diagnose horses that are sore or to otherwise inspect horses and any records pertaining to such horses for the purposes of determining compliance with the Act and regulations.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii) The applicant must not have been found to have violated any provision of the Act or the regulations in this part occurring after July 13, 1976, or have been assessed any civil penalty, or have been the subject of a disqualification order in any proceeding involving an alleged violation of the Act or regulations occurring after July 13, 1976.
(iii) The applicant, as well as the applicant's immediate family and any person from whom the applicant receives a financial benefit, must not participate in the showing, exhibition, sale, or auction of horses or act as a judge or farrier, or be an agent of management.
(iv) The applicant must not have been disqualified by the Secretary from performing diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act.
(v) The applicant must not have acted in a manner that calls into question the applicant's honesty, professional integrity, reputation, practices, and reliability relative to possible authorization as an HPI. APHIS will base this on a review of:
(A) Criminal conviction records, if any, indicating that the applicant may lack the honesty, integrity, and reliability to appropriately and effectively perform HPI duties.
(B) Official records of the person's actions while participating in Federal, State, or local veterinary programs when those actions reflect on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
(C) Judicial determinations in any type of litigation adversely reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
(D) Any other evidence reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (L-DEO) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 20, 2023.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS plans to adopt the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Environmental Assessment (EA), as we have preliminarily determined that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing the IHA. NSF's draft EA is available at
On April 27, 2023, NMFS received a request from L-DEO for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey of the Puerto Rico Trench and the southern slope of Puerto Rico in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. The application was deemed adequate and complete on July 27, 2023. L-DEO's request is for take of 27 marine mammal species by Level B harassment, and for a subset of 5 of these species, by Level A harassment. Neither L-DEO nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), University of Texas Institute of Geophysics (UTIG), and University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez (UPRM), with funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and in collaboration with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and researchers from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research (GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany, propose to conduct research, including high-energy seismic surveys using airguns as the acoustic source, from the research vessel (R/V)
The purpose of the proposed high-energy survey is to investigate the Puerto Rico Trench, its outer rise, and across the island of Puerto Rico, and provide data necessary to illuminate the depth, geometry, and physical properties of the seismogenic fault interface between the subducting Atlantic plate and the overlying accretionary wedge/Puerto Rico arc/Caribbean plate, as well as seismogenic structures in the accretionary wedge and submarine slopes of the island of Puerto Rico. The low-energy seismic surveys would be located over a 2019-2020 area of seismic activity in the Caribbean Sea to define the geometry of the faults that ruptured and other potential seismogenic structures. Additional data would be collected using a multibeam echosounder (MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), and an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP), which would be operated from R/V Langseth continuously during the seismic surveys, including during transit. No take of marine mammals is expected to result from use of this equipment.
The proposed high-energy survey is expected to last for approximately 42 days, with 21 days of seismic operations, 20 days for equipment deployment/recovery, and 2 days transit/contingency time. The low-energy survey would consist of approximately 3 days of seismic operations. R/V Langseth would likely leave from and return to port in San Juan, Puerto Rico during fall 2023.
The proposed survey would occur within approximately 17-21° N, 63.6-68.2° W, within the EEZs of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, and the Dominican Republic, in water depths ranging from approximately 100-8,400 m. The closest approach of the proposed low-energy survey lines to land on the south side of Puerto Rico is ~2.5 km from Isla de Ratones (Isla Piñero), ~3.4 km from Cayo Maria Langa, and ~3 km from Cayo Aurora. The closest approach of the high-energy survey lines to the coast of Puerto Rico is ~22 km, 28 km to the British Virgin Islands, 42 km to Dominican Republic, and 77 km to the U.S. Virgin Islands. The region where the survey is proposed to occur is depicted in Figure 1; the tracklines could occur anywhere within the polygon shown in Figure 1. Representative survey tracklines are shown, however, some deviation in actual tracklines, including the order of survey operations, could be necessary for reasons such as science drivers, poor data quality, inclement weather, or mechanical issues with the research vessel and/or equipment.
The procedures to be used for the proposed surveys would be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys by L-DEO and would use conventional seismic methodology. The high-energy surveys would involve one source vessel, R/V Langseth, which is owned and operated by L-DEO. During the high-energy MCS seismic reflection and OBS seismic refraction surveys, R/V Langseth would tow 4 strings with 36 airguns, consisting of a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and Bolt 1900LLX. During the surveys, all 4 strings, totaling 36 active airguns with a total discharge volume of 6,600 in
Approximately 4630 km of seismic acquisition are proposed. During the high-energy surveys, ~4070 km of transect lines would be surveyed (~2565 km of 2-D MCS seismic reflection data and 1505 km of OBS refraction data); the low-energy USGS surveys would consist of ~560 line km. All of the high-energy surveys with the 36-airgun array would occur in deep water >1000 m deep. For the low-energy USGS surveys conducted with the 2-GI airguns, 43 percent would occur in intermediate-depth water 100-1000 m deep, and 57 percent would take place in deep water >1000 m; no effort would occur in shallow water (<100 m deep). Following refraction shooting of one line, OBSs on that line would be recovered, serviced, and redeployed on a subsequent refraction line. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, the ocean floor would be mapped with the Kongsberg EM 122 MBES and a Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP. A Teledyne RDI 75 kHz Ocean Surveyor ADCP would be used to measure water current velocities, and acoustic pingers would be used to retrieve OBSs. Take of marine mammals is not expected to occur incidental to use of the MBES, SBP, and ADCP, whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the other sources. Given their characteristics (
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All stocks managed under the MMPA in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs (
Aside from the few species with stocks assigned for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, individuals from the species affected would not be from the stocks described in the SARs. These stocks are not extensively studied but are provisionally being considered separate stocks for management purposes and further work to differentiate them from stocks in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are being conducted. However, these stocks are likely trans-boundary within, at minimum, waters near adjacent Caribbean Islands and are not likely to occur exclusively within the bounds of the U.S. EEZ.
In Table 1 above, NMFS reports two sets of abundance estimates: Those from NMFS' SARs and those predicted by Roberts
Additionally, NMFS' SAR estimates are typically generated from the most recent shipboard and/or aerial surveys conducted. The spatial scale of these surveys along the Atlantic coast is small relative to the ability of most cetacean species to travel within their ranges. As an example, only one sighting of rough-toothed dolphin occurred in the last two dedicated cetacean abundance surveys near L-DEO's proposed survey area during 2011 or 2016. Multiple species with modeled take proposed for authorization also do not have a population abundance listed in the SAR's even though the last surveys were conducted on these species in 2019. Studies based on abundance and distribution surveys restricted to U.S. waters are unable to detect temporal shifts in distribution beyond U.S. waters that might account for any changes in abundance within U.S. waters. NMFS' SAR estimates also typically do not incorporate correction for detection bias. Therefore, they should generally be considered underestimates, especially for cryptic or long-diving species (
As indicated above, all 27 number species in Table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. Species that could potentially occur in the proposed research area but are not likely to be harassed due to the rarity of their occurrence (
In the western North Atlantic, the humpback whale occurs from Greenland to Venezuela (Würsig
Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. NMFS re-evaluated the status of the species in 2015, and on September 8, 2016, divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed the current species-level listing, and in its place listed 4 DPSs as endangered and 1 DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. Only one DPS occurs in the proposed survey area, the West Indies DPS, which is not listed under the ESA.
Stevick
The largest winter concentration of humpbacks occurs at Silver and Navidad Banks off northeastern Dominican Republic (Mattila
Samaná Bay, on the northeastern coast of the Dominican Republic, is also recognized as an important winter ground for western North Atlantic humpback whales (Mattila
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. The event was declared a UME in April 2017, and includes stranding's starting in 2016. Partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on approximately half of the 200 known cases. Of the whales examined, about 40 percent had evidence of human interaction, either ship strike or entanglement. While a portion of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike, this finding is not consistent across all whales examined and more research is needed. NMFS is consulting with researchers that are conducting studies on the humpback whale populations, and these efforts may provide information on changes in whale distribution and habitat use that could provide additional insight into how these vessel interactions occurred. Three additional UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. More information is available at:
Minke whales occur in the southeastern U.S. and Caribbean during
Since January 2017, elevated minke whale mortalities have occurred along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with a total of 148 known strandings. This event has been declared a UME. Full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on more than 60 percent of the whales. Preliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious disease, but these findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more research is needed. More information is available at:
Both the humpback whale and minke whale UME's are of populations of whales found on the Atlantic Coast and may not be the same populations found near the survey area. Additionally, further detailed descriptions and regional information of all potentially affected marine mammal species can be found in Section 3 of the L-DEO's application.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower
Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources), as is the case for pulses produced by the airgun arrays considered here. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of this dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: Pulsed and non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with energy in a frequency range from about 10-2,000 Hz, with most energy radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. The amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from the source is equal in all directions (
Here, we discuss the effects of active acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Richardson
We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of airgun arrays are reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dBs above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset;
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Finneran
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (
Critical questions remain regarding the rate of TTS growth and recovery after exposure to intermittent noise and the effects of single and multiple pulses. Data at present are also insufficient to construct generalized models for recovery and determine the time necessary to treat subsequent exposures as independent events. More information is needed on the relationship between auditory evoked potential and behavioral measures of TTS for various stimuli. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
Visual tracking, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), and movement recording tags were used to quantify sperm whale behavior prior to, during, and following exposure to airgun arrays at received levels in the range 140-160 dB at distances of 7-13 km, following a phase-in of sound intensity and full array exposures at 1-13 km (Madsen
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs or amplitude of calls (Miller
Cerchio
Castellote
Seismic pulses at average received levels of 131 dB re 1 μPa
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
Forney
Forney
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors, such as sound exposure, are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196 seismic surveys from 1994 to 2010. When arrays of large airguns (considered to be 500 in
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Under certain circumstances, significant masking could disrupt behavioral patterns, which in turn could affect fitness for survival and reproduction. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in predicting any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data on this. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, in exceptional situations, reverberation occurs for much or all of the interval between pulses (
Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and their calls usually can be heard between the pulses (
Vessel noise from the Langseth could affect marine animals in the proposed survey areas. Houghton
Ship noise, through masking, can reduce the effective communication distance of a marine mammal if the frequency of the sound source is close to that used by the animal, and if the sound is present for a significant fraction of time (
Baleen whales are thought to be more sensitive to sound at these low frequencies than are toothed whales (
In summary, project vessel sounds would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary behavioral changes in marine mammals, and would not be expected to result in significant negative effects on individuals or at the population level. In addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel traffic is currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of ambient sound (NSF-USGS 2011).
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the animal. Wounds resulting from vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface may be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface may be cut by a vessel's propeller. Superficial strikes may not kill or result in the death of the animal. These interactions are typically associated with large whales (
Pace and Silber (2005) also found that the probability of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn (26 kilometer per hour (kph), and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn (31 kph). Higher speeds during collisions result in greater force of impact, but higher speeds also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death through increased likelihood of collision by pulling whales toward the vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton
The Langseth will travel at a speed of 5 kn (9 kph) while towing seismic survey gear. At this speed, both the possibility of striking a marine mammal and the possibility of a strike resulting in serious injury or mortality are discountable. At average transit speed, the probability of serious injury or mortality resulting from a strike is less than 50 percent. However, the likelihood of a strike actually happening is again discountable. Vessel strikes, as analyzed in the studies cited above, generally involve commercial shipping, which is much more common in both space and time than is geophysical survey activity. Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized vessel strikes of large whales worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that most collisions occurred in the open ocean and involved large vessels (
It is possible for vessel strikes to occur while traveling at slow speeds. For example, a hydrographic survey vessel traveling at low speed (5.5 kn (10 kph)) while conducting mapping surveys off the central California coast struck and killed a blue whale in 2009. The State of California determined that the whale had suddenly and unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull, with the result that the propeller severed the whale's vertebrae, and that this was an unavoidable event. This strike represents the only such incident in approximately 540,000 hours of similar coastal mapping activity (
Although the likelihood of the vessel striking a marine mammal is low, we propose a robust vessel strike avoidance protocol (see Proposed Mitigation), which we believe eliminates any foreseeable risk of vessel strike during transit. We anticipate that vessel collisions involving a seismic data acquisition vessel towing gear, while not impossible, represent unlikely, unpredictable events for which there are no preventive measures. Given the proposed mitigation measures, the relatively slow speed of the vessel towing gear, the presence of bridge crew watching for obstacles at all times (including marine mammals), and the presence of marine mammal observers, the possibility of vessel strike is discountable and, further, were a strike of a large whale to occur, it would be unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality. No incidental take resulting from vessel strike is anticipated, and this potential effect of the specified activity will not be discussed further in the following analysis.
Marine mammals strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, vessel strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
There is no conclusive evidence that exposure to airgun noise results in behaviorally-mediated forms of injury. Behaviorally-mediated injury (
To understand why military MFA sonar affects beaked whales differently than airguns do, it is important to note the distinction between behavioral sensitivity and susceptibility to auditory injury. To understand the potential for auditory injury in a particular marine mammal species in relation to a given acoustic signal, the frequency range the species is able to hear is critical, as well as the species' auditory sensitivity to frequencies within that range. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities across all frequencies and, therefore, species are grouped into hearing groups with generalized hearing ranges assigned on the basis of available data (Southall
Military MFA sonar affects beaked whales differently than airguns do because it produces energy at different frequencies than airguns. Mid-frequency cetacean hearing is generically thought to be best between 8.8 to 110 kHz,
It is important to distinguish between energy (loudness, measured in dB) and frequency (pitch, measured in Hz). In considering the potential impacts of mid-frequency components of airgun noise (1-10 kHz, where beaked whales can be expected to hear) on marine mammal hearing, one needs to account for the energy associated with these higher frequencies and determine what energy is truly “significant.” Although there is mid-frequency energy associated with airgun noise (as expected from a broadband source), airgun sound is predominantly below 1 kHz (Breitzke
Aside from frequency content, there are other significant differences between MFA sonar signals and the sounds produced by airguns that minimize the risk of severe behavioral reactions that could lead to strandings or deaths at sea,
The available scientific literature also provides a useful contrast between airgun noise and MFA sonar regarding the likely risk of behaviorally-mediated injury. There is strong evidence for the association of beaked whale stranding events with MFA sonar use, and particularly detailed accounting of several events is available (
A review of possible stranding associations with seismic surveys (Castellote and Llorens, 2016) states that, “[s]peculation concerning possible links between seismic survey noise and cetacean strandings is available for a dozen events but without convincing causal evidence.” The authors' search of available information found 10 events worth further investigation via a ranking system representing a rough metric of the relative level of confidence offered by the data for inferences about the possible role of the seismic survey in a given stranding event. Only three of these events involved beaked whales. Whereas D'Amico
However, one of these stranding events, involving two Cuvier's beaked whales, was contemporaneous with and reasonably associated spatially with a 2002 seismic survey in the Gulf of California conducted by L-DEO, as was the case for the 2007 Gulf of Cadiz seismic survey discussed by Castellote and Llorens (also involving two Cuvier's beaked whales). Neither event was considered a “true atypical mass stranding” (according to Frantzis (1998)) as used in the analysis of Castellote and Llorens (2016). While we agree with the authors that this lack of evidence should not be considered conclusive, it is clear that there is very little evidence that seismic surveys should be considered as posing a significant risk of acute harm to beaked whales or other mid-frequency cetaceans. We have considered the potential for the proposed surveys to result in marine mammal stranding and, based on the best available information, do not expect a stranding to occur.
Placement of equipment, could damage areas of hard bottom where direct contact with the seafloor occurs and could crush epifauna (organisms that live on the seafloor or surface of other organisms). Damage to unknown or unseen hard bottom could occur, but because of the small area covered by most bottom-founded equipment and the patchy distribution of hard bottom habitat, contact with unknown hard bottom is expected to be rare and impacts minor. Seafloor disturbance in areas of soft bottom can cause loss of small patches of epifauna and infauna due to burial or crushing, and bottom-feeding fishes could be temporarily displaced from feeding areas. Overall, any effects of physical damage to habitat are expected to be minor and temporary.
Sound pressure levels of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality and, in some studies, fish auditory systems have been damaged by airgun noise (McCauley
A recent comprehensive review (Carroll
Available data suggest that cephalopods are capable of sensing the particle motion of sounds and detect low frequencies up to 1-1.5 kHz, depending on the species, and so are likely to detect airgun noise (Kaifu
With regard to potential impacts on zooplankton, McCauley
A modeling exercise was conducted as a follow-up to the McCauley
Notably, a more recently described study produced results inconsistent with those of McCauley
A recent review article concluded that, while laboratory results provide scientific evidence for high-intensity and low-frequency sound-induced physical trauma and other negative effects on some fish and invertebrates, the sound exposure scenarios in some cases are not realistic to those encountered by marine organisms during routine seismic operations (Carroll
In summary, impacts of the specified activity on marine mammal prey species will likely be limited to behavioral responses, the majority of prey species will be capable of moving out of the area during the survey, a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior for prey species is anticipated, and, overall, impacts to prey species will be minor and temporary. Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound source, experience TTS, experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. Mortality from decompression injuries is possible in close proximity to a sound, but only limited data on mortality in response to airgun noise exposure are available (Hawkins
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic, or may be intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its frequency content, duration, and loudness and these characteristics greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated effects to marine mammals (please see also the previous discussion on masking under “Acoustic Effects”), which may range from local effects for brief periods of time to chronic effects over large areas and for long durations. Depending on the extent of effects to habitat, animals may alter their communications signals (thereby potentially expending additional energy) or miss acoustic cues (either conspecific or adventitious). For more detail on these concepts see,
Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more likely to occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with biologically relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and predator/prey detection (Francis and Barber, 2013). Although the signals emitted by seismic airgun arrays are generally low frequency, they would also likely be of short duration and transient in any given area due to the nature of these surveys. As described previously, exploratory surveys such as these cover a large area but would be transient rather than focused in a given location over time and therefore would not be considered chronic in any given location.
Based on the information discussed herein, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Anticipated takes would primarily be Level B harassment, as use of the airgun arrays have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result for species of certain hearing groups due to the size of the predicted auditory injury zones for those groups. Auditory injury is less likely to occur for mid-frequency species, due to their relative lack of sensitivity to the frequencies at which the primary energy of an airgun signal is found, as well as such species' general lower sensitivity to auditory injury as compared to high-frequency cetaceans. As discussed in further detail below, we do not expect auditory injury for mid-frequency cetaceans. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. No mortality is anticipated as a result of these activities. Below we
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
L-DEO's proposed survey includes the use of impulsive seismic sources (
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
When the Technical Guidance was published (NMFS, 2016), in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a user spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or
The proposed survey would entail the use of a 36-airgun array with a total discharge volume of 6,600 in
For deep and intermediate water cases, the field measurements cannot be used readily to derive the harassment isopleths, as at those sites the calibration hydrophone was located at a roughly constant depth of 350-550 m, which may not intersect all the SPL isopleths at their widest point from the sea surface down to the assumed maximum relevant water depth (~2,000 m) for marine mammals. At short ranges, where the direct arrivals dominate and the effects of seafloor interactions are minimal, the data at the deep sites are suitable for comparison with modeled levels at the depth of the calibration hydrophone. At longer ranges, the comparison with the model—constructed from the maximum SPL through the entire water column at varying distances from the airgun array—is the most relevant.
In deep and intermediate water depths at short ranges, sound levels for direct arrivals recorded by the calibration hydrophone and L-DEO model results for the same array tow depth are in good alignment (see Figures 12 and 14 in Diebold
The proposed high-energy survey would acquire data with the 36-airgun array at a tow depth of 12 m and the low-energy surveys would use two GI airguns at a 3m tow depth. For deep water (>1000 m), we use the deep-water radii obtained from L-DEO model results down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m for the 36-airgun array and the two GI airguns. The radii for intermediate water depths (100-1,000 m) are derived from the deep-water ones by applying a correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5, such that observed levels at very near offsets fall below the corrected mitigation curve (see Figure 16 in Diebold
L-DEO's modeling methodology is described in greater detail in L-DEO's application. The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth for the proposed airgun configuration are shown in Table 4.
Table 5 presents the modeled PTS isopleths for each cetacean hearing group based on L-DEO modeling incorporated in the companion user spreadsheet, for the high-energy surveys with the shortest shot interval (
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on modeling performed by L-DEO using the Nucleus software program and the NMFS user spreadsheet, described below. The acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (
The SEL
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans, given very small modeled zones of injury for those species (all estimated zones less than 15 m for mid-frequency cetaceans), in context of distributed source dynamics.
In consideration of the received sound levels in the near-field as described above, we expect the potential for Level A harassment of mid-frequency cetaceans to be de minimis, even before the likely moderating effects of aversion and/or other compensatory behaviors (
The Level A and Level B harassment estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be within the area around the operating airgun array where received levels of sound ≥160 dB re 1 µPa rms are predicted to occur (see Table 1). The estimated numbers are based on the densities (numbers per unit area) of marine mammals expected to occur in the area in the absence of seismic surveys. To the extent that marine mammals tend to move away from seismic sources before the sound level reaches the criterion level and tend not to approach an operating airgun array, these estimates likely overestimate the numbers actually exposed to the specified level of sound.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations.
Habitat-based stratified marine mammal densities for the North Atlantic and Puerto Rico are taken from the US Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Area Marine Mammal Density (Roberts
For most species, the average monthly densities were the same throughout the year; densities for fin whale, sei whale, humpback whale, and Atlantic white-sided dolphin varied by month, so the highest monthly densities were used.
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization. In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in Level A or Level B harassment, radial distances from the airgun array to the predicted isopleth corresponding to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. Those radial distances are then used to calculate the area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the harassment thresholds. The distance for the 160-dB Level B harassment threshold and PTS (Level A harassment) thresholds (based on L-DEO model results) was used to draw a buffer around the area expected to be ensonified (
L-DEO generally assumed that their estimates of marine mammal exposures above harassment thresholds equate to take and requested authorization of those takes. Those estimates in turn form the basis for our proposed take authorization numbers. For the species for which NMFS does not expect there to be a reasonable potential for take by Level A harassment to occur,
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations.
Visual monitoring requires the use of trained observers (herein referred to as visual protected species observers (PSO)) to scan the ocean surface for the presence of marine mammals. The area to be scanned visually includes primarily the shutdown zone (SZ), within which observation of certain marine mammals requires shutdown of the acoustic source, but also a buffer zone and, to the extent possible depending on conditions, the surrounding waters. The buffer zone means an area beyond the SZ to be monitored for the presence of marine mammals that may enter the SZ. During pre-start clearance monitoring (
L-DEO must use dedicated, trained, and NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes shall be provided to NMFS for approval.
At least one of the visual and two of the acoustic PSOs (discussed below) aboard the vessel must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in those roles, respectively, with no more
During survey operations (
PSOs shall establish and monitor the shutdown and buffer zones. These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the edges of the airgun array (rather than being based on the center of the array or around the vessel itself). During use of the airgun array (
Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 1 hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period. Combined observational duties (visual and acoustic but not at same time) may not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period for any individual PSO.
L-DEO must notify the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Nicole Angeli (DPNR Virgin Islands), and Grisel Rodriguez Ferrer (DNR Puerto Rico) of the start and end date of airgun operations in the survey area via email (
Passive acoustic monitoring means the use of trained personnel (sometimes referred to as PAM operators, herein referred to as acoustic PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to acoustically detect the presence of marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring involves acoustically detecting marine mammals regardless of distance from the source, as localization of animals may not always be possible. Acoustic monitoring is intended to further support visual monitoring (during daylight hours) in maintaining an SZ around the sound source that is clear of marine mammals. In cases where visual monitoring is not effective (
PAM would take place in addition to the visual monitoring program. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, and localization of cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring would serve to alert visual PSOs (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is only useful when marine mammals vocalize, but it can be effective either by day or by night, and does not depend on good visibility. It would be monitored in real time so that the visual observers can be advised when cetaceans are detected.
The R/V Langseth will use a towed PAM system, which must be monitored by at a minimum one on duty acoustic PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and at all times during use of the airgun array. Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 1 hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period. Combined observational duties (acoustic and visual but not at same time) may not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period for any individual PSO.
Survey activity may continue for 30 minutes when the PAM system malfunctions or is damaged, while the PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the diagnosis indicates that the PAM system must be repaired to solve the problem, operations may continue for an additional 10 hours without acoustic monitoring during daylight hours only under the following conditions:
• Sea state is less than or equal to BSS 4;
• No marine mammals (excluding delphinids) detected solely by PAM in the applicable SZ in the previous 2 hours;
• NMFS is notified via email as soon as practicable with the time and location in which operations began occurring without an active PAM system; and
• Operations with an active airgun array, but without an operating PAM system, do not exceed a cumulative total of 10 hours in any 24-hour period.
An SZ is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes,
The pre-start clearance zone is defined as the area that must be clear of marine mammals prior to beginning ramp-up of the airgun array, and includes the SZ plus the buffer zone. Detections of marine mammals within the pre-start clearance zone would prevent airgun operations from beginning (
The 500-m SZ is intended to be precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to contain sound exceeding the injury criteria for all cetacean hearing groups, (based on the dual criteria of SEL
An extended SZ of 1,500 m must be enforced for all beaked whales and
Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as “soft start”) means the gradual and systematic increase of emitted sound levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up begins by first activating a single airgun of the smallest volume, followed by doubling the number of active elements in stages until the full complement of an array's airguns are active. Each stage should be approximately the same duration, and the total duration should not be less than approximately 20 minutes. The intent of pre-start clearance observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no marine mammals are observed within the pre-start clearance zone (or extended SZ, for beaked whales and
• The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up in order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the pre-start clearance zone (and extended SZ) for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start clearance);
• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with the source activated prior to reaching the designated run-in;
• One of the PSOs conducting pre-start clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed;
• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the applicable shutdown or buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the pre-start clearance zone (or extended SZ, for beaked whales and
• Ramp-up shall begin by activating a single airgun of the smallest volume in the array and shall continue in stages by doubling the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with each stage of approximately the same duration. Duration shall not be less than 20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were followed;
• PSOs must monitor the pre-start clearance zone (and extended SZ) during ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon detection of a marine mammal within the applicable zone. Once ramp-up has begun, detections of marine mammals within the buffer zone do not require shutdown, but such observation shall be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown;
• Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Airgun array activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances;
• If the airgun array is shut down for brief periods (
• Testing of the airgun array involving all elements requires ramp-up. Testing limited to individual source elements or strings does not require ramp-up but does require pre-start clearance of 30 minutes.
The shutdown of an airgun array requires the immediate de-activation of all individual airgun elements of the array. Any PSO on duty will have the authority to delay the start of survey operations or to call for shutdown of the airgun array if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable SZ. The operator must also establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the airgun array to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. When both visual and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all detections will be immediately communicated to the remainder of the on-duty PSO team for potential verification of visual observations by the acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections by visual PSOs. When the airgun array is active (
Following a shutdown, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the SZ. The animal would be considered to have cleared the SZ if it is visually observed to have departed the SZ (
The shutdown requirement is waived for small dolphins if an individual is detected within the SZ. As defined here, the small dolphin group is intended to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array (
We include this small dolphin exception because shutdown requirements for small dolphins under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small dolphins are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described above, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small dolphins commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed (
Visual PSOs shall use best professional judgment in making the decision to call for a shutdown if there is uncertainty regarding identification (
L-DEO must implement shutdown if a marine mammal species for which take was not authorized, or a species for which authorization was granted but the authorized takes have been met, approaches the Level A or Level B harassment zones. L-DEO must also implement shutdown if any large whale (defined as a sperm whale or any mysticete species) with a calf (defined as an animal less than two-thirds the body size of an adult observed to be in close association with an adult) and/or an aggregation of six or more large whales are observed at any distance.
Vessel personnel should use an appropriate reference guide that includes identifying information on all marine mammals that may be encountered. Vessel operators must comply with the below measures except under extraordinary circumstances when the safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt or the safety of life at sea is in question. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammal. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (distances stated below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (
Vessel speeds must be reduced to 10 kn (18.5 kph) or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from sperm whales and all other baleen whales. All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
As described above, PSO observations would take place during daytime airgun operations. During seismic survey operations, at least five visual PSOs would be based aboard the Langseth. Two visual PSOs would be on duty at all times during daytime hours. Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the following requirements:
• The operator shall provide PSOs with bigeye binoculars (
• The operator will work with the selected third-party observer provider to ensure PSOs have all equipment (including backup equipment) needed to adequately perform necessary tasks, including accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed marine mammals.
PSOs must have the following requirements and qualifications:
• PSOs shall be independent, dedicated, trained visual and acoustic PSOs and must be employed by a third-party observer provider;
• PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort (visual or acoustic), collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of protected species and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards);
• PSOs shall have successfully completed an approved PSO training course appropriate for their designated task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs are required to complete specialized training for operating PAM systems and are encouraged to have familiarity with the vessel with which they will be working;
• PSOs can act as acoustic or visual observers (but not at the same time) as long as they demonstrate that their training and experience are sufficient to perform the task at hand;
• NMFS must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training course information packet that includes the name and qualifications (
• PSOs must successfully complete relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program;
• PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics; and
• The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for such a waiver shall be submitted to NMFS and must include written justification. Requests shall be granted or denied (with justification) by NMFS within 1 week of receipt of submitted information. Alternate experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored protected species surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties.
• For data collection purposes, PSOs shall use standardized electronic data collection forms. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of animals to the airgun array and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the airgun array. If required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following information must be recorded:
○ Vessel name, vessel size and type, maximum speed capability of vessel;
○ Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) of departures and returns to port with port name;
○ PSO names and affiliations, PSO ID (initials or other identifier);
○ Date (MM/DD/YYYY) and participants of PSO briefings (as discussed in 3(d));
○ Visual monitoring equipment used (description);
○ PSO location on vessel and height (meters) of observation location above water surface;
○ Watch status (description);
○ Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) and times (Greenwich Mean Time/UTC) of survey on/off effort and times (GMC/UTC) corresponding with PSO on/off effort;
○ Vessel location (decimal degrees) when survey effort began and ended and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
○ Vessel location (decimal degrees) at 30-second intervals if obtainable from data collection software, otherwise at practical regular interval;
○ Vessel heading (compass heading) and speed (knots) at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any change;
○ Water depth (meters) (if obtainable from data collection software);
○ Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions changed significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
○ Factors that may have contributed to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions changed (description) (
○ Vessel/Survey activity information (and changes thereof) (description), such as airgun power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in the array, tow
• Upon visual observation of any marine mammals, the following information must be recorded:
○ Sighting ID (numeric);
○ Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
○ Location of PSO/observer (description);
○ Vessel activity at the time of the sighting (
○ PSO who sighted the animal/ID;
○ Time/date of sighting (GMT/UTC, MM/DD/YYYY);
○ Initial detection method (description);
○ Sighting cue (description);
○ Vessel location at time of sighting (decimal degrees);
○ Water depth (meters);
○ Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
○ Speed (knots) of the vessel from which the observation was made;
○ Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel (description, compass heading);
○ Bearing to sighting (degrees);
○ Identification of the animal (
○ Species reliability (an indicator of confidence in identification) (1 = unsure/possible, 2 = probable, 3 = definite/sure, 9 = unknown/not recorded);
○ Estimated distance to the animal (meters) and method of estimating distance;
○ Estimated number of animals (high/low/best) (numeric);
○ Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
○ Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
○ Detailed behavior observations (
○ Animal's closest point of approach (meters) and/or closest distance from any element of the airgun array; and
○ Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
○ Photos (Yes/No);
○ Photo Frame Numbers (List of numbers);
○ Conditions at time of sighting (Visibility; Beaufort Sea State);
If a marine mammal is detected while using the PAM system, the following information should be recorded:
• An acoustic encounter identification number, and whether the detection was linked with a visual sighting;
• Date and time when first and last heard;
• Types and nature of sounds heard (
• Any additional information recorded such as water depth of the hydrophone array, bearing of the animal to the vessel (if determinable), species or taxonomic group (if determinable), spectrogram screenshot, and any other notable information.
The Holder shall submit a draft comprehensive report on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals, must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring, and must summarize the dates and locations of survey operations and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated survey activities). The draft report shall also include geo-referenced time-stamped vessel tracklines for all time periods during which airgun arrays were operating. Tracklines should include points recording any change in airgun array status (
The report must include a validation document concerning the use of PAM, which should include necessary noise validation diagrams and demonstrate whether background noise levels on the PAM deployment limited achievement of the planned detection goals. Copies of any vessel self-noise assessment reports must be included with the report.
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
• Status of all sound sources in use;
• Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measure were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
• Environmental conditions (
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Estimated size and length of the animal that was struck;
• Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and following the strike;
• If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals present immediately preceding the strike;
• Estimated fate of the animal (
• To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
In the event of a live stranding (or near-shore atypical milling) event in the U.S. Caribbean territories and/or within 50 km of the survey operations, where the NMFS stranding network is engaged in herding or other interventions to return animals to the water, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee), will advise L-DEO of the need to implement shutdown procedures for all active airgun arrays operating within 50 km of the stranding. Shutdown procedures for live stranding or milling marine mammals include the following: if at any time, the marine mammal(s) die or are euthanized, or if herding/intervention efforts are stopped, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee), will advise the IHA-holder that the shutdown around the animals' location is no longer needed. Otherwise, shutdown procedures will remain in effect until the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee), determines and advises L-DEO that all live animals involved have left the area (either of their own volition or following an intervention).
If further observations of the marine mammals indicate the potential for re-stranding, additional coordination with the IHA-holder will be required to determine what measures are necessary to minimize that likelihood (
• Status of all sound source use in the 48 hours preceding the estimated time of stranding and within 50 km of the discovery/notification of the stranding by NMFS; and
• If available, description of the behavior of any marine mammal(s) observed preceding (
In the event that the investigation is still inconclusive, the investigation of the association of the survey activities is still warranted, and the investigation is still being pursued, NMFS may provide additional information requests, in writing, regarding the nature and location of survey operations prior to the time period above.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 1, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks they are included as separate subsections below. NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result of L-DEO's planned survey, even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section above, non-auditory physical effects and vessel strike are not expected to occur. NMFS expects that the majority of potential takes would be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment, resulting from temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
We are proposing to authorize a limited number of Level A harassment events of five species in the form of PTS (humpback whale, minke whale, sei whale, and
In addition, the maximum expected Level B harassment zone around the survey vessel is 6,733 m for water depths greater than 1,000 m (and up to
There are no rookeries, mating, or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area and there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area. There is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals in the survey area.
As discussed above, there are several active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of L-DEO's survey area. Elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida since January 2016. Of the cases examined, approximately half had evidence of human interaction (ship strike or entanglement). The UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts. Despite the UME, the relevant population of humpback whales (the West Indies breeding population, or DPS) remains stable at approximately 12,000 individuals.
Beginning in January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. This event does not provide cause for concern regarding population level impacts, as the likely population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales, and the UME is pending closure. Although, the populations experiencing the UME's may not be the same as the populations impacted by the proposed survey.
Additionally, the proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes for all species listed in Table 1, including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable adverse impact. In particular they would provide animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source throughout the survey area before seismic survey equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing them from being exposed to sound levels that have the potential to cause injury (Level A harassment) or more severe Level B harassment.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The proposed activity is temporary and of relatively short duration (40 days);
• The vast majority of anticipated impacts of the proposed activity on marine mammals would be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the area around the vessel;
• The availability of alternative areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the proposed survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity is readily abundant;
• The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the proposed survey would be temporary and spatially limited, and impacts to marine mammal foraging would be minimal;
• The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number of takes by Level A harassment (in the form of PTS) by allowing for detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel by visual and acoustic observers; and
• The proposed mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic shutdowns are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals (both amount and severity).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS authorizes is below one-third of the estimated modeled abundance for all species (in fact, take of individuals is less than six percent of the abundance of the affected stocks, see Table 6). This is likely a conservative estimate because we assume all takes are of different individual animals, which is likely not the case. Some individuals may be encountered multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate individuals if they cannot be identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of blue whales, fin whales, sei whales, and sperm whales, which are listed under the ESA. The OPR Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the OPR Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey in Puerto Rico in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean during fall of 2023, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed marine geophysical survey. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1 year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.