Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
First Responder Network Authority
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is amending its regulations for watershed projects to allow Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations to sponsor needed watershed projects. While federally recognized Tribes generally maintain regulatory jurisdiction over their land and can therefore exert eminent domain, Alaska Native Corporations and Tribal organizations do not have eminent domain authority, which has been one of the requirements to be a watershed project sponsor. This rule change will provide an option to better allow federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, or Tribal organizations to become watershed project sponsors.
We invite you to submit comments in response to this rule. You may submit your comments through one of the following methods below:
•
All comments received will be made publicly available on
Ralph Smith; telephone: (202) 819-6587; email:
Watershed projects are authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566, 16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534, 33 U.S.C. 701b-1). Public Law 83-566 and Public Law 78-534 authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with State and local agencies, federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and Tribal organizations in the planning and carrying out of works of improvement for flood prevention; for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and for the conservation and proper use of land. NRCS administers these authorities for watershed projects for USDA. NRCS provides technical and financial assistance for watershed projects. Participation in watershed projects is voluntary.
NRCS is amending its regulations for watershed projects to allow more Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations to sponsor needed watershed projects.
While federally recognized Tribes generally maintain regulatory jurisdiction over their land and can therefore exert eminent domain, Alaska Native Corporations and Tribal organizations do not have eminent domain authority, which has been one of the requirements to be a watershed project sponsor. This requirement is not necessary when the Tribe or Tribal organization has already acquired the necessary real property interests needed in connection with the works of improvement.
Through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to entities of State and local governments, federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and Tribal Organizations in need of help with protecting and restoring small watersheds for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, flood prevention, watershed protection, and agricultural water management. These locally sponsored projects are highly coordinated between sponsoring and regulatory agencies and involve detailed studies before design and implementation can begin.
This rule change will provide an option to allow more Indian Tribes, defined under the legislative authorization to include Alaska Native Corporations (25 U.S.C. 5304), or Tribal organizations to become watershed project sponsors.
This rule will modify the sponsorship requirements to increase Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations ability to be a sponsor for watershed projects to:
(1) Prevent damage from erosion, floodwater, and sediment;
(2) Further the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and
(3) Further the conservation and proper utilization of land.
Specifically, the rule will revise the regulation in 7 CFR 622.10 to add an exemption for applicable Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations from the requirement to have eminent domain in order to be a watershed project sponsor.
NRCS must revise its current regulations to modify the power of eminent domain requirement for watershed project sponsors. While federally recognized Tribes generally maintain regulatory jurisdiction over their land and can therefore exert eminent domain, Alaska Native Corporations and Tribal organizations do not have eminent domain authority. Still, many Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations have expressed the need to sponsor watershed projects. As noted above, the rule change will exempt Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations from that requirement.
NRCS currently has requests from approximately 30 Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations for watershed projects in 9 states.
The change in the regulation will help to ensure that Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations have the opportunity to sponsor watershed projects if there is a need.
Being a sponsor of a watershed project is voluntary. There are no anticipated changes to the current overall watershed project costs or benefits to customers, NRCS or others. The change is relatively minor in the overall scope of the Public Law 83-566 and Public Law 78-534 watershed projects.
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rule involves matters relating to financial assistance, which is considered a benefit.
This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay in the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this rule is effective upon publication in the
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” 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. The assessment should include potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule.
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and the NRCS regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR parts 1b and 650).
This rule makes a minor discretionary amendment to improve administration of the program and clarify existing program requirements. The discretionary change will not alter any environmental impacts resulting from implementing the change for watershed projects. Accordingly, the discretionary change is covered by the USDA Categorical Exclusion for policy development, planning, and implementation that relates to routine activities (7 CFR 1b.3(a)(1)).
Through this review, NRCS determined that the discretionary change in this rule is within the categorical exclusion listed above. Categorical exclusions apply when no extraordinary circumstances exist (7 CFR 650.6(c)(2)). The amendment will not have an adverse impact on the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, NRCS will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this rule.
This rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988 on “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. This rule will not have a retroactive effect.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” E.O. 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.
NRCS developed the rule changes in response to requests from Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations seeking greater flexibility in the administration of USDA programs. Tribes have suggested this change as a means of removing a barrier to their participation in the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. If a Tribe requests consultation, the USDA Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) will ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications are not expressly mandated by law.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule has been reviewed in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This rule does not have any information collection requirements. NRCS neither collects information from the public nor sponsors the collection of information from the public for the watershed programs.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the 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.
Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the
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.
Flood control, Grant programs—natural resources, Loan programs—natural resources, Soil conservation, Technical assistance, Watersheds.
For the reasons discussed above, NRCS amends 7 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1001-1012a, and 33 U.S.C. 701b-1.
(a) Watershed projects are sponsored by one or more local organizations qualifying as sponsors. All watershed plans must be sponsored by entities legally organized under State law or by any Indian Tribe or Tribal organization having the authority to carry out, operate, and maintain works of improvement.
(1)
(i) The power of eminent domain, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
(ii) The authority to levy taxes or use other adequate funding sources, to finance their share of the watershed project cost and all operation and maintenance costs.
(2)
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
This final rule adopts, without change, an interim final rule with request for comments published in the
Effective September 13, 2024.
Terrence L. Boos, Ph.D., Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as amended in 2015 by the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act (section 2(b) of Pub. L. 114-89), when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) receives notification from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that the Secretary has approved a certain new drug and HHS recommends control in the CSA schedule II-V, DEA is required to issue an interim final rule (IFR), with opportunity for public comment and to request a hearing, controlling the drug within a specified 90-day timeframe and subsequently to issue a final rule.
On August 4, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the New Drug Application (commonly referred to as NDA) for zuranolone to be marketed as a prescription drug (ZURZUVAE, capsule) for the treatment of post-partum depression. DEA received notification that FDA approved the NDA on the same date. Pursuant to its FDA-approved prescription drug labeling, ZURZUVAE, 50 mg, is to be administered orally once in the evening with fat-consuming food for 14 days. The dose may be reduced for patients who cannot tolerate 50 mg. In addition, on July 12, 2023, HHS recommended that DEA place zuranolone and its salts in schedule IV of the CSA.
On October 31, 2023, DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(j), published an IFR in the
DEA received one comment on the IFR to control zuranolone in schedule IV of the CSA. The commenter briefly expressed that schedule IV was the appropriate schedule for zuranolone based on the similarity of this substance to substances in schedule IV and requested information on what surveillance and reporting systems exist to ensure proper use of zuranolone due to its documented abuse potential.
In response to the request of information regarding surveillance and reporting systems in place, DEA notes that diversion and illicit trafficking of zuranolone will be monitored by DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS)-Drug.
DEA also notes that the monitoring of adverse effects for any new drug products, including abuse potential, largely falls under the purview of HHS, including FDA. FDA monitors the adverse events for all drugs through a postmarketing pharmacovigilance program.
DEA is aware that in the publicly available NDA letter,
Additionally, adverse effects can be reported to FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). FDA has a publicly available FAERS dashboard,
Based on the rationale set forth in the IFR, DEA adopts the IFR, without change.
As indicated above, zuranolone has been a schedule IV controlled substance by virtue of an IFR issued by DEA in October 2023. Thus, this final rule does not alter the regulatory requirements applicable to handlers of zuranolone that have been in place since that time. Nonetheless, for informational purposes, we restate here those requirements. Zuranolone is subject to the CSA's schedule IV regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distributing, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities, including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Any person who registers with DEA to handle zuranolone must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including zuranolone) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (b).
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take inventory of all controlled substances (including zuranolone) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11. These requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess zuranolone pursuant to a lawful prescription.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
This final rule, without change, affirms the IFR that is already in effect. Section 553 of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553) generally requires notice and comment for rulemakings. However, 21 U.S.C. 811(j) provides that in cases where a certain new drug is (1) approved by HHS, under section 505(c) of the FDCA, and (2) HHS recommends control in CSA schedule II-V, DEA shall issue an IFR scheduling the drug within 90 days. Additionally, subsection 811(j) specifies that the rulemaking shall become immediately effective as an IFR without requiring DEA to demonstrate good cause. DEA issued an IFR on October 31, 2023, and solicited public comments on that rule. Subsection (j) further provides that after giving interested persons the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing, the Attorney General, as delegated to the Administrator of DEA, shall issue a final rule in accordance with the scheduling criteria of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) through (d) and 812(b). As stated above, DEA received one comment and no requests for a hearing or waiver of a hearing. DEA is now issuing the final rule in accordance with subsection (j).
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the procedures and criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563. E.O. 14094 modernizes the regulatory review process to advance policies that promote the public interest and address national priorities.
This meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
This proposed action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA. As noted in the above discussion regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA is not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 6, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of web general licenses.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing six general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant to the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations: GLs 6D, 8J, 25D, 98, 99, and 100, each of which were previously made available on OFAC's website.
GLs 6D, 8J, 25D, 98, 99, and 100 were issued on June 12, 2024. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Compliance, 202-622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On June 12, 2024, OFAC issued GLs 6D, 8J, 25D, 98, 99, and 100 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. GL 8J has an expiration date of November 1, 2024; GL 98 has an expiration date of July 27, 2024; and GLs 99 and 100 have an expiration date of August 13, 2024. GLs 6D, 8J and 25D superseded GLs 6C, 8I, and 25C, respectively. Each GL was made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587, related to: (1) the production, manufacturing, sale, transport, or provision of agricultural commodities, agricultural equipment, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices; (2) the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of COVID-19 (including research or clinical studies relating to COVID-19); or (3) clinical trials and other medical research activities are authorized.
(b) For the purposes of this general license, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices are defined as follows:
(1)
(i) Food for humans (including raw, processed, and packaged foods; live animals; vitamins and minerals; food additives or supplements; and bottled drinking water) or animals (including animal feeds);
(ii) Seeds for food crops;
(iii) Fertilizers or organic fertilizers; or
(iv) Reproductive materials (such as live animals, fertilized eggs, embryos, and semen) for the production of food animals.
(2)
(3)
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity subject to Directive 2 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14024,
(2) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or
(3) Transactions prohibited by E.O. 14066, E.O. 14068, or E.O. 14071, except for transactions prohibited by the determination of May 8, 2022, made pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 14071, “Prohibitions Related to Certain Accounting, Trust and Corporate Formation, and Management Consulting Services,” or the determination of June 12, 2024, made pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 14071, “Prohibition on Certain Information Technology and Software Services.”
(d) Effective June 12, 2024, General License No. 6C, dated January 17, 2023, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 6D.
Dated: June 12, 2024.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 involving one or more of the following entities that are related to energy are authorized, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, November 1, 2024:
(1) State Corporation Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs Vnesheconombank;
(2) Public Joint Stock Company Bank Financial Corporation Otkritie;
(3) Sovcombank Open Joint Stock Company;
(4) Public Joint Stock Company Sberbank of Russia;
(5) VTB Bank Public Joint Stock Company;
(6) Joint Stock Company Alfa-Bank;
(7) Public Joint Stock Company Rosbank;
(8) Bank Zenit Public Joint Stock Company;
(9) Bank Saint-Petersburg Public Joint Stock Company;
(10) National Clearing Center (NCC);
(11) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest; or
(12) the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
(b) For the purposes of this general license, the term “related to energy” means the extraction, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, transport, or purchase of petroleum, including crude oil, lease condensates, unfinished oils, natural gas liquids, petroleum products, natural gas, or other products capable of producing energy, such as coal, wood, or agricultural products used
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 1A under E.O. 14024,
(2) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity subject to Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation; or
(4) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
(d) Effective June 12, 2024, General License No. 8I, dated April 29, 2024, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 8J.
Dated: June 12, 2024.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the Russian Federation that are prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), are authorized.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, to the Russian Federation of services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, blogging, social media platforms, collaboration platforms, video conferencing, e-gaming, e-learning platforms, automated translation, web maps, user authentication services, web hosting, and domain name registration services, that is prohibited by the RuHSR, is authorized.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by U.S. persons, to the Russian Federation of software, hardware, or technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet is authorized, provided that:
(i) If the software, hardware, or technology is subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (EAR), the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply to the Russian Federation of such software, hardware, or technology is licensed or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the EAR; and
(ii) If the software, hardware, or technology is not subject to the EAR, the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply to the Russian Federation of such software, hardware, or technology would be eligible for a license exception or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce if it were subject to the EAR.
(d) This general license does not authorize:
(1) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity subject to Directive 2 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14024,
(2) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;
(3) Any transactions prohibited by E.O. 14066 or E.O. 14068; or
(4) Any transactions involving Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia, Joint Stock Company NTV Broadcasting Company, Television Station Russia-1, Limited Liability Company Algoritm, New Eastern Outlook, Oriental Review, or Garantex Europe OU, unless separately authorized.
(e) Effective June 12, 2024, General License No. 25C, dated July 14, 2022, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 25D.
Dated: June 12, 2024.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving one or more of the following blocked entities are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, July 27, 2024, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR):
(1) Aviatech FZC
(2) Beijing Deepcool Industries Co., Ltd.
(3) Guangdong Pratic CNC Technology Co., Ltd.
(4) Joint Stock Company Uralredmet
(5) Joint Stock Company Goznak
(6) Limited Liability Company Elga Stroy Mining Services
(7) Limited Liability Company Elgaugol
(8) Limited Liability Company Management Company Elga
(9) Limited Liability Company Koulstar
(10) Max Jet Service Limited Liability Company
(11) Mile Hao Xiang Technology Co., Ltd.
(12) Platin Group Machine Manufacturing International Company Limited
(13) Public Joint Stock Company Seligdar
(14) Shandong Oree Laser Technology Co., Ltd.
(15) Wuhan Tianyu Information Industry Co., Ltd; or
(16) Any entity in which one or more one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Dated: June 12, 2024.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to
(1) Moscow Exchange (MOEX);
(2) National Clearing Center (NCC);
(3) Non-Bank Credit Institution Joint Stock Company National Settlement Depository (NSD); and
(4) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or the facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of debt or equity issued or guaranteed by any of the blocked entities identified in paragraph (a) (“Covered Debt or Equity”) to a non-U.S. person are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, August 13, 2024, 2024:
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of Covered Debt or Equity that were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time, June 12, 2024 are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, August 13, 2024, 2024.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of derivative contracts entered into prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time June 12, 2024 that (i) include a blocked person described in paragraph (a) of this general license as a counterparty or (ii) are linked to Covered Debt or Equity are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time August 13, 2024, provided that any payments to a blocked person are made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).
(e) Paragraph (b) of this general license does not authorize:
(1) U.S. persons to sell, or to facilitate the sale of, Covered Debt or Equity to, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked; or
(2) U.S. persons to purchase or invest in, or to facilitate the purchase of or investment in, directly or indirectly, Covered Debt or Equity, other than purchases of or investments in Covered Debt or Equity ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer of Covered Debt or Equity as described in paragraph (b) of this general license.
(f) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Dated: June 12, 2024.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment of debt or equity to a non-U.S. person, who is not a person whose property or interests in property are blocked, or the conversion of currencies, involving one or more of the following blocked entities that is acting solely as a securities, trade, or settlement depository, central counterparty or clearing house, or public trading market, are authorized through 12:01 eastern daylight time August 13, 2024:
(1) Moscow Exchange (MOEX);
(2) National Clearing Center (NCC);
(3) Non-Bank Credit Institution Joint Stock Company National Settlement Depository (NSD); and
(4) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Dated: June 12, 2024.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Alligator Reef Lighthouse Swim on September 7, 2024, to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Islamorada, FL. During the enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulation in 33 CFR 100.701 will be enforced for the Alligator Reef Lighthouse Swim regulated area listed in item 4, in Table 1 to § 100.701 paragraph (b), from 7:30 a.m. until 4 p.m., on September 7, 2024.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Hayden Hunt, Sector Key West Waterways Management Department, Coast Guard; telephone 305-292-8823; email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.701 for the Alligator Reef Lighthouse Swim regulated area identified in Table to § 100.701, paragraph (b), item (4), from 7:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on September 7, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events, within the Seventh Coast Guard District Table to § 100.701, paragraph (b), item (4), specifies the location of the regulated area for the Alligator Reef Lighthouse Swim. Under the provisions of § 100.100(c), no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or
The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Key West determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this publication, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing an emergency temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Kentucky River extending from mile marker (MM) 65.5 to MM 66 near Frankfort, KY. This emergency safety zone is needed to protect life, vessels, and the marine environment due to stability concerns of the Broadway Bridge near MM 65.5. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from August 14, 2024, until September 6, 2024. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 9, 2024, until August 14, 2024.
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 Petty Officer Dalton Johnson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 812-249-2619, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory 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.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. On August 5, 2024, a 50-foot section of concrete walkway from the Broadway Bridge near MM 65.5 fell into the river, and continues to deteriorate, causing a hazard to navigation. The safety zone must be established immediately (as of August 9, 2024) to protect people and vessels from the concerns of further falling debris. Insufficient time exists to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. This safety zone may include closures and/or navigation restrictions and requirements that are vital to maintaining safe navigation on the Kentucky River during response efforts and the hazards of falling debris. Therefore, delaying the effective date for this emergency safety zone to complete the NPRM process would also be contrary to the public interest as it would delay the safety measures vital to safe navigation.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with falling debris from the Broadway Bridge, as is currently occurring, along with repairs and potential demolition activities beginning immediately, will be a safety concern for anyone within MM 65.5 to MM 66 on the Kentucky River. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the threat of continued falling debris exists and repairs or demolition activities exist.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary emergency safety zone for all navigable waters on the Kentucky River from Mile Marker (MM) 65.5 and MM 66, extending the entire width of the Kentucky River. Transit into and through this area is prohibited for all traffic beginning August 9, 2024, and will continue through September 6, 2024, or until the hazard has been mitigated. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the threat of continued falling debris exists and repairs or demolition activities exist. The COTP will terminate the enforcement of this safety zone before September 6, 2024, if the bridge has been demolished. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or their designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley.
Requests for entry will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 502-779-5422 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the 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 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-year of the safety zone. This safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering or transiting within a 0.5 mile area of navigable waterways on the Kentucky River between MMs 65.5 and 66. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine 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 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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 24 hours a day for 28 days that will prohibit entry within a half mile stretch of the Kentucky River. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We will prepare a Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination. It will be 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) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 502-779-5422 or on VHF-FM channel 16.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is publishing a final rule for the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (PTSCTP). This final rule clarifies voluntary PTSCTP participation and sets administrative requirements for communication processes between FTA and FTA recipients subject to the requirements of this rule. This final rule also adds new definitions and revises existing definitions to coordinate and align with other FTA programs and safety rulemakings.
The effective date of this final rule is November 1, 2024.
FTA's Office of Transit Safety and Oversight (TSO) will host a webinar to discuss the requirements of the PTSCTP final rule.
Please visit
For program matters, contact Jeremy Furrer, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight (TSO), (202) 366-8929 or
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
This final rule amends the PTSCTP regulation at 49 CFR part 672 with new administrative requirements for recipients that are subject to the requirements of the rule. The final rule maintains the existing minimum training requirements for State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) employees and contractors who conduct reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of public transportation systems and employees and contractors who are directly responsible for the safety oversight of a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
Congress directed FTA to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program, one element of which is the requirement for a PTSCTP in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141), which was reauthorized by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94). To implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA issued a final rule on July 19, 2018, that added part 672, “Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program,” to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (83 FR 34053). Subsequently, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58), established new requirements for FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program that will be addressed in the PTSCTP curriculum.
This final rule implements discretionary updates, including:
• Addition of new definitions and revisions of existing definitions that do not change existing requirements and that were added to provide clarity and consistency across FTA programs and rulemakings.
• Requirement for SSOAs and rail transit agencies to establish a point of contact for communication with FTA regarding PTSCTP participation and enrollment.
• Requirement for SSOA and rail transit agency points of contact to provide semiannual reports to FTA regarding the status of their participants and agency-defined recertification training.
• Clarification of voluntary participation in the PTSCTP.
• Removal of Appendix A to allow flexibility in PTSCTP curriculum revision.
In response to comments, FTA revised the term “refresher training” to “recertification training” in the final rule to clarify the applicability of the training required to maintain PTSCTP certification. Recertification requirements only apply to the “designated personnel” identified in § 672.11(a) and § 672.13(a).
The final rule adds administrative and training requirements for SSOAs and rail transit agencies subject to the PTSCTP. The rule would lead to increased compliance with PTSCTP
FTA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the PTSCTP on October 26, 2023 (88 FR 73573).
FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration when developing the final rule. Below, the NPRM comments and responses are subdivided by the corresponding sections of the proposed rule and subject matter.
Other commenters requested broad changes to the PTSCTP requirements. One nonprofit organization requested that FTA require all designated personnel to complete the entire curriculum annually. An industry association requested that FTA merge the PTSCTP and the Transit Safety and Security Program (TSSP) into one certification program.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that suggested FTA require all required participants to complete the entire PTSCTP curriculum annually. FTA believes that such a change would be overly burdensome for transit agencies and SSOAs by requiring designated individuals to complete over 140 hours of PTSCTP training annually. FTA declines to implement this change and confirms that this final rule requires designated individuals to complete the PTSCTP curriculum within three years of designation to receive certification and to complete applicable recertification requirements every two years thereafter to maintain this certification.
FTA acknowledges the comment requesting FTA merge the PTSCTP with the TSSP administered by the Transportation Safety Institute. FTA notes that the TSSP is outside the scope of this final rule. FTA notes that this final rule does not alter the existing PTSCTP curriculum. Further, FTA will coordinate with the industry in the future regarding any curriculum changes to ensure sufficient time to comply with requirements.
In the NPRM, FTA did not propose extending mandatory PTSCTP applicability to the bus transit industry. However, FTA sought industry input on whether mandatory PTSCTP participation should extend to bus transit agencies and personnel. FTA received nine responses offering input on whether the requirements should extend to bus transit.
Three commenters argued against extending PTSCTP requirements to bus transit. An individual argued against extending requirements to bus transit, citing challenges such as limited course availability and additional burden to bus agency resources. An industry association argued against expansion, noting limited course availability, limited bus agency resources, and a lack of oversight structure such as the State Safety Oversight (SSO) program in place for rail transit. A transit agency argued that bus agencies should monitor their own performance under the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) requirements and determine if additional training is needed. The agency also argued that the additional burden would be too much given limited bus agency resources. This bus agency also raised concerns regarding applicability to contractors that support bus operations.
Three commenters expressed neutral positions regarding expansion of PTSCTP requirements to bus transit. One SSOA recommended FTA seek input directly from bus transit stakeholders regarding the expansion of PTSCTP applicability beyond SSOAs and rail transit agencies. Two transit agencies did not express a clear position for or against expansion but noted that training availability would be a significant challenge. One of these transit agencies also noted that if applicability was expanded to bus transit, FTA may need to consider modifying the three-year requirement to allow ample time for bus personnel to take required courses.
One industry association requested FTA specify courses that are acceptable to meet the PTSCTP refresher training requirement. One transit agency requested FTA clarify the consequences of a participant not completing refresher training by the required completion date.
FTA appreciates the comment that agencies should be able to identify refresher training requirements that best suit their needs. The final rule maintains this requirement for recertification in §§ 672.11(d)(2) and 672.13(d)(2) while adding an additional recertification element identified by FTA.
FTA acknowledges the comment that requested FTA specify the courses or activities that meet the refresher training requirement established under the final rule at §§ 672.11(d)(2) and 672.13(d)(2). FTA declines to provide an exhaustive list of courses or activities that meet the recertification requirement in the final rule, as such a list would evolve as additional training courses and activities are made available by FTA and the industry. FTA has published a technical assistance fact sheet (
FTA acknowledges the comment requesting FTA clarify the consequences of a participant not completing PTSCTP refresher training. A recipient that does not ensure its designated participants complete PTSCTP recertification within the required two-year period is subject to FTA enforcement action in accordance with FTA's authorities under 49 U.S.C. 5329.
FTA acknowledges the commenters who requested clarification of the refresher training requirements for a voluntary participant who later becomes a designated participant of an SSOA or rail transit agency. Upon designation, a participant must complete the initial safety training requirements of the PTSCTP within three years. If a voluntary participant who has already completed the initial safety training requirements of the PTSCTP is later “designated” by a rail transit agency or SSOA, the individual would need to complete applicable recertification requirements within two years of their designation.
One transit agency stated that the POC should not be required to track voluntary participants from their agency until such time the participant becomes a “designated” participant of the agency.
One transit agency requested that FTA clarify whether the POC would be responsible for tracking completion of the recertification element defined by FTA.
FTA acknowledges the commenter who suggested FTA add a requirement for agencies to establish a secondary POC in the final rule. FTA agrees this may be a good practice for some agencies to adopt but is declining to impose this as a requirement in the final rule to limit any additional administrative burden.
FTA acknowledges the commenter who suggested the agency POC would not be required to track voluntary participants unless they become “designated” by the agency. FTA agrees that agency POCs should not be required to track their agency personnel and contractors who are voluntarily participating in the PTSCTP. However, as part of the semiannual reporting requirement, FTA may request the POC to confirm whether a voluntary participant has been designated by the agency or is still participating on a voluntary basis.
In response to the comment requesting FTA clarify if the agency POC would be responsible for tracking completion of the recertification element defined by FTA, FTA expects agencies to monitor and track their designated participants' completion of all applicable training requirements, including recertification requirements.
One industry association recommended that FTA give rail transit agencies and SSOAs flexibility in how they report semiannually. This commenter and a transit agency suggested FTA provide a template that the agencies may choose to use.
One SSOA agreed that recertification and training compliance should be monitored but expressed concern the proposed changes are burdensome. The commenter suggested that semiannual reporting should be completed annually through the State Safety Oversight Reporting (SSOR) tool and that FTA can monitor training compliance through the State Safety Oversight (SSO) audit program.
FTA acknowledges the commenter who expressed concern related to the potential reporting burden associated with the semiannual reporting requirements. FTA has established these new reporting requirements to help control the burden associated with ad-hoc requests and inconsistencies in agencies' processes for tracking PTSCTP information. FTA plans to develop a process and mechanism that will control burden and establish information consistency across the industry.
FTA appreciates the commenter's suggestion regarding specific data collection platforms but notes that the SSOR tool is not accessible by rail transit agencies and is not designed to support semiannual PTSCTP reporting. FTA also acknowledges the commenter's suggestion that FTA can monitor PTSCTP compliance through the SSO audit program. FTA notes that the SSO audit program audits compliance with 49 CFR part 674. To the extent that any PTSCTP-related requirements are established by part 674, the SSO audit program will ensure compliance with such requirements.
This section defines the purpose of this rule, which is to implement a uniform safety certification training program and to enhance the technical proficiency of individuals who conduct safety reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of public transportation systems operated by public transportation agencies and those who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation agencies. This section clarifies that the final rule does not preempt any safety certification training requirements required by a State for public transportation agencies within its jurisdiction.
This section sets forth the applicability of the PTSCTP regulation. The regulation applies to all recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53. This section specifies that PTSCTP requirements only apply to SSOAs and their employees and contractors that conduct safety reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems and to rail transit agencies and their employees and contractors who are directly responsible for the safety oversight of a recipient's rail fixed guideway public transportation systems.
This section sets forth the definitions of key terms used in the regulation. Notably, readers should refer to new definitions for terms such as “initial training,” “safety review,” “designated personnel,” and “voluntary participant.” In addition, readers should refer to new definitions for “recertification” and “recertification training” related to the replacement of the term “refresher training.”
Section 672.11(a) establishes requirements for SSOAs to designate certain SSOA employees and contractors that must comply with PTSCTP requirements. This includes employees and contractors that conduct reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of public transportation systems, including appropriate managers and supervisors of such personnel.
Section 672.11(b) requires SSOAs to ensure that designated personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP within 30 days of designation and that designated participants comply with PTSCTP requirements.
Section 672.11(c) establishes a three-year deadline for designated SSOA participants to complete the applicable training requirements of part 672.
Section 672.11(d) establishes two recertification requirements which must be completed by designated SSOA participants every two years following completion of the PTSCTP curriculum, including recertification requirements defined by FTA and recertification requirements defined by the SSOA, which must include one hour of safety oversight training.
Section 672.13(a) establishes requirements for rail transit agencies to designate certain rail transit agency employees and contractors who must comply with PTSCTP requirements. This includes employees and contractors who are directly responsible for safety oversight of rail modes.
Section 672.13(b) requires rail transit agencies to ensure that designated personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP within 30 days of designation and that designated participants comply with PTSCTP requirements.
Section 672.13(c) establishes a three-year deadline for designated rail transit agency participants to complete the applicable training requirements of part 672.
Section 672.13(d) establishes two recertification requirements which must be completed by designated rail transit agency participants every two years following completion of the PTSCTP curriculum, including recertification requirements defined by FTA and recertification requirements defined by the rail transit agency, which must include one hour of safety oversight training.
Section 672.15(a) clarifies the process for requesting a course equivalency evaluation from FTA.
Section 672.15(b) clarifies requirements for requesting a course equivalency evaluation from FTA.
Section 672.15(c) defines how FTA may make determinations for requested course equivalency evaluations.
This section establishes that individuals not designated by an SSOA or rail transit agency may voluntarily participate in the program.
Section 672.17(a) defines the requirements for receiving a certificate of completion as a voluntary participant and clarifies that the recertification requirement does not apply to voluntary participants and that FTA will not recertify voluntary participants.
Section 672.17(b) clarifies that if a voluntary participant has received PTSCTP certification and is subsequently designated by an SSOA or rail transit agency as a PTSCTP participant, the individual would then need to meet the established recertification requirements for designated PTSCTP participants within two (2) years of designation.
This section establishes new administrative requirements for recipients subject to the requirements of the rule, including SSOAs and rail transit agencies.
Section 672.21(a) clarifies an applicable grantee's responsibilities for ensuring its designated personnel meet the requirements established by this part. These responsibilities include ensuring designated personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP, ensuring designated personnel complete the initial training within three years of enrollment, and ensuring designated personnel complete recertification every two years upon completion of the initial PTSCTP curriculum.
Section 672.21(b) establishes the requirement for SSOAs and rail transit agencies to identify a single point of contact (POC) at the agency who will serve as a liaison with FTA regarding PTSCTP records. FTA expects recipients to provide FTA with standard contact information for the identified PTSCTP POC, including name, title, phone number, and email address.
Section 672.21(c) establishes the responsibilities of the identified PTSCTP POC, including informing FTA of changes in enrolled PTSCTP participants, enrolling new PTSCTP participants, and confirming recertification requirements and completion for participants. FTA expects to conduct PTSCTP-related communication with recipients through email (
Section 672.21(d), FTA establishes a semiannual reporting requirement for the PTSCTP. This section sets the requirement for the identified PTSCTP POC to submit a current list of individuals designated as required PTSCTP participants, and the course or courses that that agency has identified as required for PTSCTP recertification. For recertification requirement documentation, the PTSCTP POC must report the specific name and length of each course, as well as the name of the course training provider or developer.
Section 672.21(e) clarifies the existing requirement for SSOAs to submit a technical training plan to FTA as part of its annual reporting requirements established at § 674.39 of this chapter. FTA has also replaced the reference to “System Safety Program Plan” in Appendix A of the current rule with “Agency Safety Plan” in § 672.21(e)(3). This section also sets the requirement for training records to include the minimum passing scores for proficiency tests. This provides FTA with the parameters for designated personnel to pass or fail the subject proficiency test and enables FTA to interpret proficiency test scores.
This final rule does not amend this section.
The final rule does not amend this section.
Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of regulations, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits when possible, and to consider economic, environmental, and distributional effects. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review significant regulatory actions, including regulations with annual economic effects of $200 million or more. OMB has determined the final rule is not significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
The analysis for the final rule adds calculations using a discount rate of 2 percent, following guidance in the November 2023 update to OMB Circular A-4.
The final rule would add administrative and training requirements for SSOAs and rail transit agencies subject to the requirements of the PTSCTP. The rule would require each agency to establish a point of
The final rule would lead to increased agency compliance with PTSCTP requirements. This analysis does not estimate benefits from increased compliance, however, because the economic analysis for the PTSCP rule that established the requirements assumed that agencies would have full compliance. Estimating benefits would therefore lead to double counting.
The final rule would also lead to minor cost savings for FTA staff and contractors, who would need to spend less time verifying that agency employees met training requirements. To estimate cost savings, FTA used time and wage estimates for federal employees and contractors currently supporting the PTSCP program. In 2022 dollars, the rule would have an estimated annual cost savings of $5,900 (Table 2).
To estimate the costs of meeting the new requirements, FTA estimated the number of entities affected, the number and type of staff involved, and the time needed (Table 3). The requirements would affect 31 SSOAs and 64 rail transit agencies in operation as of March 1, 2023.
To estimate the value of staff time spent on the requirements, FTA used May 2022 occupational wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the latest available as of March 2024, in the “Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation” industry (North American Industry Classification System code 485000).
The administrative and reporting requirements of the proposed rule have estimated annual costs of $318,000 (Table 5). The largest annual costs are for point of contact responsibilities ($128,000) and refresher training ($86,000). FTA would also incur minimal one-time costs to develop the refresher training materials.
Table 6 summarizes the economic effects of the proposed rule over the first ten years of the rule from 2024—the assumed effective date of the rule—to 2033 in 2022 dollars. On an annualized basis, the rule would have net costs of $318,000 at a 2 percent discount rate, $321,000 at a 3 percent rate, and $334,000 at a 7 percent rate, discounted to 2024.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The final rule requires SSOAs and rail transit agencies to meet additional administrative requirements. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, local governments and other public-sector organizations qualify as small entities if they serve a population of less than 50,000. State agencies do not qualify, and no rail transit agency serves an urbanized area with a population of less than 50,000. FTA has therefore determined that the final rule would not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
FTA has determined that this rule does not impose unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Additionally, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal Transit Act permits this type of flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and FTA determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. FTA also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1) Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This rule qualifies for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction). FTA has evaluated whether the rule will involve unusual or extraordinary circumstances and has determined that it will not.
FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. FTA does not believe this rule affects a taking of private property or otherwise has taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies that this action will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FTA has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All)(April 21, 2023)(which builds upon Executive Order 12898) and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534)
FTA has evaluated this action under its environmental justice policies and FTA has determined that this action will not cause disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on communities with EJ concerns.
A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the Unified Agenda.
Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 5329, 5334; 49 CFR 1.91.
(a) This part implements a uniform safety certification training curriculum and requirements to enhance the technical proficiency of individuals who conduct safety reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of public transportation systems operated by public transportation agencies and those who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation agencies.
(b) This part does not preempt any safety certification training requirements required by a State for public transportation agencies within its jurisdiction.
(a) In general, this part applies to all recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
(b) The requirements of this part apply only to:
(1) State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOAs) and their employees and contractors that conduct safety reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, and
(2) Rail transit agencies and their employees and contractors who are directly responsible for the safety oversight of a recipient's rail fixed guideway public transportation systems.
(c) Voluntary participants may complete the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program curriculum in accordance with this part.
As used in this part:
(1) Employees and contractors identified by a recipient whose job function is directly responsible for safety oversight of the public transportation system of the public transportation agency; or
(2) Employees and contractors of a State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) whose job function requires them to conduct reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of the rail fixed guideway public transportation systems subject to the jurisdiction of the agency.
(1) Employees and contractors of an applicable recipient that have not been designated under § 672.11(a) or § 672.13(a), and
(2) Individuals who are not employees or contractors of an applicable recipient.
(a) Each SSOA shall designate its employees and contractors that must comply with the applicable training requirements of this part and the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (PTSCTP) curriculum. Each SSOA must designate employees and contractors who conduct reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of public transportation systems, including appropriate managers and supervisors of such personnel.
(b) Each SSOA shall ensure that each designated individual is enrolled in the PTSCTP within 30 days of the individual's designation. Each SSOA shall ensure the compliance of designated participants with the applicable training requirements of this part and the PTSCTP curriculum.
(c) Employees and contractors designated under paragraph (a) of this section shall complete applicable training requirements of this part and the PTSCTP curriculum within three (3) years of their initial PTSCTP enrollment.
(d) Thereafter, upon completion of the PTSCTP curriculum, designated personnel shall complete recertification every two (2) years. Required recertification training shall consist of two elements:
(1) Element 1: Recertification training defined by FTA, and
(2) Element 2: Recertification training defined by the SSOA, which must include, at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety oversight training.
(a) Each rail transit agency shall designate its employees and contractors who must comply with the applicable training requirements of this part and the PTSCTP curriculum. Each rail transit agency must designate employees and contractors who are directly responsible for safety oversight of rail modes.
(b) Each rail transit agency shall ensure that each designated individual is enrolled in the PTSCTP within 30 days of the individual's designation. Each rail transit agency shall ensure the compliance of designated participants with the applicable training requirements of this part and the PTSCTP curriculum.
(c) Employees and contractors designated under paragraph (a) of this section shall complete applicable training requirements of this part and the PTSCTP curriculum within three (3) years of their initial PTSCTP enrollment.
(d) Thereafter, upon completion of the PTSCTP curriculum, designated personnel must complete recertification every two (2) years. Required recertification training shall consist of two elements:
(1) Element 1: Specific recertification training defined by FTA, and
(2) Element 2: Recertification training defined by the rail transit agency, which must include, at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety oversight training.
(a) PTSCTP participants or an identified point of contact described in § 672.21(b) may request that FTA evaluate safety training or certification previously obtained from another entity to determine if the training satisfies an applicable training requirement of this part.
(b) Individuals requesting FTA evaluation of previously obtained training or certification must provide FTA with an official transcript or certificate of the training, a description of the curriculum and competencies obtained, and a brief statement detailing how the training or certification satisfies the applicable requirements of this part. The required information must be submitted using an equivalency credit request via electronic means defined by FTA.
(c) FTA will evaluate the submission and determine if a training requirement of this part may be waived. If a waiver is granted, designated personnel are responsible for completing all other applicable requirements of this part.
(a) Individuals not subject to the requirements of this part may participate voluntarily. To receive a certificate of completion as a voluntary participant, individuals must complete the PTSCTP curriculum within three (3) years of their enrollment. Voluntary participants are not required to complete recertification. FTA will not recertify voluntary participants.
(b) If a voluntary participant has received a PTSCTP certificate of completion and is subsequently designated by an SSOA or rail transit agency as a PTSCTP participant, the individual will need to complete required recertification training within two (2) years of designation.
(a)
(1) Are enrolled in the PTSCTP;
(2) Complete the initial training specified in the PTSCTP curriculum within three (3) years of their enrollment as a designated participant; and
(3) Complete required recertification every two (2) years upon completion of the PTSCTP curriculum.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) All employees and contractors of the recipient who are designated as PTSCTP participants; and
(2) The course or courses the recipient has identified as required recertification training for their designated personnel. The agency identified recertification training must include, at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety oversight training. The documentation must include the complete name and length of each course, as well as the name of the course training provider.
(e)
(2) Each SSOA shall develop and maintain a technical training plan for
(3) Each SSOA shall identify the tasks related to reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities requiring SSOA approval, which must be performed by the SSOA to carry out its safety oversight requirements, and identify the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each oversight task at that system. At a minimum, the technical training plan will describe the process for receiving technical training in the following competency areas appropriate to the specific rail fixed guideway public transportation system(s) for which reviews and inspections conducted:
(i) Agency organizational structure.
(ii) Agency Safety Plan.
(iii) Knowledge of agency:
(A) Territory and revenue service schedules.
(B) Current bulletins, general orders, and other associated directives that ensure safe operations.
(C) Operations and maintenance rule books.
(D) Safety rules.
(E) Standard Operating Procedures.
(F) Roadway Worker Protection.
(G) Employee Hours of Service and Fatigue Management program.
(H) Employee Observation and Testing Program (Efficiency Testing).
(I) Employee training and certification requirements.
(J) Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, schedules, and records.
(K) Track inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and records.
(L) Tunnels, bridges, and other structures inspection and maintenance programs, schedules, and records.
(M) Traction power (substation, overhead catenary system, and third rail), load dispatching, inspection and maintenance programs, schedules, and records.
(N) Signal and train control inspection and maintenance programs, schedules, and records.
(4) The SSOA will determine the length of time for the technical training based on the skill level of the designated personnel relative to the applicable rail transit agency(s). FTA will provide a template as requested to assist the SSOA with preparing and monitoring its technical training plan and will provide technical assistance as requested. Each SSOA technical training plan that is submitted to FTA for review will:
(i) Require designated personnel to successfully:
(A) Complete training that covers the skills and knowledge needed to effectively perform the tasks.
(B) Pass a written and/or oral examination covering the skills and knowledge required for the designated personnel to effectively perform their tasks.
(C) Demonstrate hands-on capability to perform their tasks to the satisfaction of the appropriate SSOA supervisor or designated instructor.
(ii) Establish equivalencies or written and oral examinations to allow designated personnel to demonstrate that they possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.
(iii) Require biennial recertification training to maintain technical skills and abilities, which includes classroom and hands-on training, as well as testing. Observation and evaluation of actual performance of duties may be used to meet the hands-on portion of this requirement, provided that such testing is documented.
(iv) Require that training records be maintained to demonstrate the current qualification status of designated personnel assigned to carry out the oversight program. Records may be maintained either electronically or in writing and must be provided to FTA upon request. Records must include the following information concerning each designated personnel:
(A) Name;
(B) The title and date each training course was completed, the proficiency test score(s), and the minimum passing score of the test, where applicable;
(C) The content of each training course successfully completed;
(D) A description of the designated personnel's hands-on performance applying the skills and knowledge required to perform the tasks that the employee will be responsible for performing and the factual basis supporting the determination;
(E) The tasks the designated personnel are deemed qualified to perform; and
(F) Provide the date that the designated personnel's status as qualified to perform the tasks expires, and the date in which biennial recertification training is due.
(v) Ensure the qualification of contractors performing oversight activities. SSOAs may use demonstrations, previous training and education, and written and oral examinations to determine if contractors possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.
(vi) Periodically assess the effectiveness of the technical training. One method of validation and assessment could be efficiency tests or periodic review of employee performance.
(a) Except as required by law, or expressly authorized or required by this part, a recipient may not release information pertaining to employees and contractors that is required by this part without the written consent of the individual.
(b) Individuals are entitled, upon written request to the recipient, to obtain copies of any records pertaining to their training required by this part. The recipient shall promptly provide the records requested by personnel and access shall not be contingent upon the recipient's receipt of payment for the production of such records.
(c) A recipient shall permit access to all facilities utilized and records compiled in accordance with the requirements of this part to the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, or any State agency with jurisdiction over public transportation safety oversight of the recipient.
(d) When requested by the National Transportation Safety Board as part of an accident investigation, a recipient shall disclose information related to the training of employees and contractors.
(a) A recipient of FTA financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 that is subject to the requirements of this part as specified in § 672.3(b) shall annually certify compliance with this part in accordance with FTA's procedures for annual grant certification and assurances.
(b) A certification must be authorized by the recipient's governing board or other authorizing official and must be signed by a party specifically authorized to do so.
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects a printing error in the preamble of a final rule that appeared in the
Effective September 4, 2024.
Valerie Quinn at (202) 740-5567. If you require accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
In FR Doc. 2024-09483 appearing on page 38665 in the issue of May 7, 2024, in the second and third columns, make the following corrections:
1. Remove “The railroads have pushed our sites to take on more expense and change operations to match the new process and operating strategies. We have had to increase our railcar fleet by over 10 percent in the past couple of years solely due to inconsistency in the rail service and increased transit time. And we're about to increase our fleet again in the next six months by approximately seven to eight percent. This is again due to the inconsistency in the service and transit time.” Hr'g Tr. 792:19 to 793:6, Mar. 16, 2022,
2. Correct footnote 23 to read as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule will implement a set of management measures to ensure fishery impacts on California Coastal (CC) Chinook salmon, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, remain within the conservation objective in the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (Salmon FMP). Under the final rule, management tools (
Effective September 13, 2024.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to
Shannon Penna, Fishery Management Specialist, at 562-980-4239 or
The ocean salmon fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (3-200 nautical miles; 5.6-370.4 kilometers) off Washington, Oregon, and California are managed under the Salmon FMP. The Salmon FMP and implementing regulations govern the development of annual management measures at the spring (March and April) Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meetings each year. Management measures for the salmon fisheries are developed annually because the abundance of the salmon stocks in the fishery can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next and information about annual stock abundance does not become available until early in each year (January-early March).
The commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off northern California and southern Oregon target healthy or abundant stocks of Chinook and coho salmon, but may incidentally encounter Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed CC Chinook salmon. The CC Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has been listed as threatened under the ESA since 1999. The Salmon FMP includes harvest controls that are used to manage salmon stocks sustainablyand requires that the fisheries be managed consistent with “consultation standards” for stocks listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA for which NMFS has issued biological opinions. NMFS has issued biological opinions for every ESA-listed salmon species impacted by the fisheries governed by the Salmon FMP. A series of biological opinions on the CC Chinook salmon ESU (NMFS 2000; McInnis 2005; NMFS 2023; NMFS 2024) have concluded that management of the salmon fishery that avoids exceedance of the conservation objective will avoid jeopardizing the ESU. As described in these biological opinions, the available data are insufficient for developing an ESU-specific conservation objective for CC Chinook salmon. Thus, NMFS has relied on a surrogate, Klamath River fall-run Chinook Salmon (KRFC), to evaluate and limit impacts on CC Chinook salmon in ocean salmon fisheries. The conservation objective is an ocean harvest rate (HR) on age-4 KRFC of 0.16. In its 2024 biological opinion, NMFS confirmed that managing fisheries to avoid exceeding this conservation objective would avoid jeopardy to CC Chinook salmon.
From 2018 to 2022, the fishery HR on age-4 KRFC significantly exceeded 0.16 with an average of 0.28. Adjustments to ocean management models were made to account for these high catch rates, and fisheries were managed to stay within a lower rate than the conservation objective, but the fisheries continued to exceed the conservation objective for CC Chinook salmon The recent increases in the post-season KRFC age-4 ocean HR from 2018 through 2021 suggest that the level of impacts on CC Chinook salmon have likely increased.
For 2023, in response to record low forecasts for KRFC and Sacramento fall-run Chinook (SRFC) salmon, the Council ultimately recommended the closure of commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off the coast of California for 2023, and NMFS approved this closure.
In the fall of 2023, the Council considered recommending additional measures to address the high catch rates of KRFC and stay within the conservation objective for CC Chinook salmon. At the November 2023 Council meeting, the Council voted to recommend a set of management measures to ensure that the CC Chinook salmon conservation objective is not exceeded, including landing and possession limits, an overall allowable harvest level, and inseason management consistent with the provisions of the Salmon FMP.
In 2024, the Council again recommended the closure of commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off the coast of California through calendar year 2024, and NMFS approved the closure.
The management measures included in this rule will apply to the ocean salmon fisheries between the Oregon/California border and the U.S./Mexico border (
1. The majority of the KRFC harvest (and assumed impacts on CC Chinook salmon) in the ocean occurs in this area;
2. The age-4 ocean HR for KRFC in this area has consistently exceeded pre-season projections in recent years;
3. Contact-rate-per-unit-effort in this area has exceeded projections in recent years;
4. The fisheries in this area have been managed primarily through season controls such as time and area restrictions (as opposed to use of landing and possession limits and/or quota management);
5. Time and area restrictions in this area have not been effective in controlling harvest of KRFC (and assumed impacts on CC Chinook salmon) in recent years; and
6. Ocean fisheries in other areas that impact KRFC routinely implement the same or similar management measures as described in these measures for a similar purpose.
The rule requires implementation of measures used in salmon fisheries elsewhere on the West Coast to ensure fisheries off the coast of California do not exceed the conservation objective for CC Chinook salmon. The Salmon FMP contemplates that a range of management tools will be used to ensure the fisheries are managed to avoid exceeding all limits for stocks caught in the various management areas along the West Coast (FMP chapter 6). These management tools (
Consistent with the proposed rule, 89 FR 30314 (April 23, 2024), this final rule adds new 50 CFR 660.410(d), which requires fishery managers to set an allowable harvest level of a number of Chinook salmon for each year, consistent with the conservation objective (including the buffer described as follows). In setting the annual harvest level, the Council may recommend and NMFS may applya buffer to the conservation objective to account for management error and reduce the potential for exceeding the conservation objective. The default buffer would be the percent error (defined as the difference between the preseason projected HR and the post-season estimated HR, divided by the post-season estimated HR, and expressed as a percentage) averaged over the most recent 5 years. Other relevant factors such as revisions to the fishery management models used to estimate the preseason Chinook catch, environmental indicators relevant to the status of KRFC, constraints on fisheries under consideration for the areas and months with greatest impacts to KRFC Chinook, may be considered to further refine the buffer. Using the allowable harvest level and projected effort, managers will determine landing and possession limits pre-season to ensure that the fishery does not exceed the allowable harvest level. The fishery will be monitored inseason and actions will be taken as needed to prevent the fisheries from exceeding the annual harvest level. We expect that this multilayered conservative approach (
NMFS received seven comment letters. Of these letters, three comment letters were from private citizens and are not relevant to this action.
Contact rate-per-unit-effort in the California commercial troll fishery has significantly exceeded model expectations leading to HRs that have frequently and substantially exceeded the CC Chinook salmon conservation objective from 2018 to 2022. In 2021 and 2022, the model used to predict harvest of KRFC was updated, and a conservation buffer was applied to the pre-season projection. Despite this concerted effort to avoid another exceedance, the 2022 fisheries exceeded the objective by more than double. This action is intended to manage the commercial salmon troll fishery to address the source of the high catch rates of KRFC and stay within the CC Chinook salmon conservation objective.
Changes were made from the proposed rule to clarify the language and not changing the substance from the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification or on the economic impacts of the rule generally. As a result, a regulatory flexibity analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This rule changes the existing requirements for the collection of information 0648-0433 by adding a requirement for submission of fish tickets within 24 hours of landing. Public reporting burden for fish ticket submission is estimated to average 0 hours because the submission is already be required by the California Code of Regulations, this rule only changes the requirement for timing of that submission.
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. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted to the following website:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
A formal section 7 consultation under the ESA was initiated for the Salmon FMP. In a biological opinion dated February 29, 2024, NMFS determined that fishing activities pursuant to this rule will not affect endangered and threatened species or critical habitat in any manner not considered in prior consultations on West Coast ocean salmon fisheries managed under the Salmon FMP and its implementing regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of that species or its critical habitat.
This final rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with the Tribal representative on the Council.
Fisheries, Fishing, Indians-lands, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 660 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) Take and retain, possess, or land salmon caught with a net in the fishery management area, except that a hand-held net may be used to bring hooked salmon on board a vessel.
(2) Fish for, take and retain, or possess any species of salmon:
(i) During closed seasons or in closed areas;
(ii) While possessing on board any species not allowed to be taken in the area at the time;
(iii) Once any catch limit is attained;
(iv) By means of gear or methods other than recreational fishing gear or troll fishing gear, or gear authorized under § 660.408(k) for treaty Indian fishing;
(v) In violation of any action issued under this subpart; or
(vi) In violation of any applicable area, season, species, zone, gear, daily bag limit, or length restriction.
(c)
(1) The potential for critically low natural spawner abundance, including considerations for substocks that may fall below crucial genetic thresholds;
(2) Spawner abundance levels in recent years;
(3) The status of co-mingled stocks;
(4) Indicators of marine and freshwater environmental conditions;
(5) Minimal needs for Tribal fisheries;
(6) Whether the stock is currently in an approaching overfished condition;
(7) Whether the stock is currently overfished;
(8) Other considerations, as appropriate; and
(9) Exploitation rates, including
(d)
(1) The annual specifications and management measures will include an allowable harvest level expressed in numbers of Chinook salmon for the salmon fisheries off the coast of California that is projected, using the Klamath Ocean Harvest Model and Sacramento Harvest Model, to ensure fisheries do not exceed the conservation objective. A harvest rate that is lower than the conservation objective may be used to determine the allowable harvest level in order to address the potential for exceeding the objective in a particular year. The lower harvest rate will be determined in two steps.
(i) In the first step, NMFS and the Council will calculate the average percent error (defined as the difference between the preseason projected HR and the post-season estimated HR, divided by the post-season estimated HR, and expressed as a percentage) averaged over the most recent 5 years, and apply the average percent error to the conservation objective. Only positive percent error will be applied because the intent is to keep the post-season harvest rate below the conservation objective.
(ii) In the second step, other relevant factors affecting the preseason assessment of the age-4 KRFC harvest rate will be considered, such as revisions to the fishery management models used to estimate the preseason Chinook catch, environmental indicators relevant to the status of KRFC, constraints on fisheries under consideration for the areas and months with greatest impacts to KRFC Chinook, and the lower harvest rate may be modified based on these factors.
(2) The annual specifications and management measures will include the following management measures to ensure fisheries affecting California Coastal Chinook do not exceed the allowable harvest level.
(i) Landing and possession limits will be used in the commercial troll fisheries to keep fishery catch within the allowable harvest level. Landing and possession limits will be set for periods not to exceed 1 week. Landing and possession limits may vary from one calendar month to the next but will be the same for periods within the same calendar month.
(ii) A percentage of the allowable harvest level (
(iii) For the first 2 years after the promulgation of this rule in which a salmon fishery occurs in the EEZ off the California coast, inseason actions will only be used to further restrict harvest (
(3) Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish tickets must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the applicable State regulations.
(4) NMFS will implement inseason actions as described in § 660.409, following processes described in that section, as needed to ensure catch in the fishery does not exceed the allowable harvest level and will close areas and seasons upon reaching the allowable harvest limit.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve certain portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of North Dakota (North Dakota) on January 12, 2015, and August 11, 2022, to address regional haze. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's nitrogen oxides (NO
Written comments must be received on or before September 13, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0641, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Holly DeJong, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6241, email address:
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On January 12, 2015, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision to address the regional haze program requirements to submit periodic progress reports under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.308(h)
In section 169A of the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”
The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999.
The CAA requires each State to develop a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including protection of visibility.
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. Section 169(b)(2)(A) specifies that one such requirement is for certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 to procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the States through their SIPs. Under the Regional Haze Rule, States (or the EPA, in the case of a FIP) are directed to make BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources—typically larger, often uncontrolled, and older stationary sources—that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the
Pursuant to CAA section 169A(g)(2), CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), in determining the measures necessary for BART, a State must take into account the following five factors and demonstrate how they were taken into consideration in making a BART determination:
• costs of compliance;
• energy and non-air quality impacts of compliance;
• pollution control equipment at the source;
• remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources;
• visibility improvement anticipated to result from controls.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO
In addition to the BART requirements, the CAA's visibility protection provisions also require that States' regional haze SIPs contain a “long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.”
Unlike the BART determinations, which were only required for the first implementation period regional haze planning period SIPs,
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g) States are required to periodically submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goals for each mandatory Class I area within the State and in each Class I area outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. The first progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP revision and was due five years from submittal of the initial implementation plan for the first planning period. The progress reports must contain specific elements as listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(8). Additionally, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require States to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP.
The Regional Haze Rule requires that a State consult with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) before adopting and submitting a required SIP revision. Further, a State must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in its notice to the public,
Coal Creek, the largest power plant in North Dakota, is a two-unit, approximately 1,200 gross megawatt (MW) mine-mouth power plant consisting primarily of two steam generators and associated coal and ash handling systems.
The Governor of North Dakota submitted North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP for the first implementation period to the EPA on March 3, 2010, followed by supplements to the SIP titled “SIP Supplement No. 1” on July 27, 2010, and “SIP Amendment No. 1” on July 28, 2011 (collectively, “2010 SIP submittal”). North Dakota submitted the 2010 SIP submittal to meet the requirements of the regional haze program for the first planning period of 2008 through 2018. Among other things, the 2010 SIP submittal included a BART emission limit for NO
On April 6, 2012, the EPA promulgated a final rule that approved in part and disapproved in part North Dakota's 2010 SIP submittal (2012 Final Rule).
In the same action, the EPA promulgated a FIP that included a NO
Subsequently, several petitioners challenged various aspects of the EPA's final rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Pertinent to this proposal, North Dakota and Great River Energy challenged the EPA's disapproval of North Dakota's determination that LNC3+ with an emission limit of 0.17lb/MMBtu averaged across the two units (30-day rolling average) is NO
On January 2, 2013, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision
On September 23, 2013, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the EPA properly disapproved portions of the 2010 Regional Haze SIP, including the EPA's disapproval of North Dakota's NO
Several SIP submissions and EPA actions for the first implementation period followed the Eighth Circuit's decision. On January 12, 2015, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision for a regional haze five-year progress report, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g). On April 26, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the Coal Creek NO
As part of its 2022 SIP submittal to address Regional Haze for the second planning period, North Dakota submitted a revised NO
For its NO
For the source-specific BART analysis associated with this action, North Dakota provided costs of compliance associated with the controls it deemed technologically feasible at Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 (LNC3+, LNC3+ w/SCR, and LNC3+ w/SNCR). North Dakota did not analyze Ultracat, catalytic filter bags, and “mid-temperature” SCR catalyst at Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 because they were deemed technologically infeasible. North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal includes an updated analysis and evaluation for NO
The cost of an emissions control measure is derived using capital and annual operation and maintenance costs. Cost effectiveness is analyzed in terms of control cost per ton of pollutant removed by the control. Cost/ton for a particular control technology is the difference in anticipated annual emissions using baseline emissions and expected annual emissions performance through installation of the additional retrofit control measure. In addition to the average cost effectiveness threshold for the BART evaluations, North Dakota also calculated an incremental cost effectiveness (cost effectiveness between two control measures) threshold.
North Dakota analyzed LNC3+, SNCR, and SCR for average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness in its updated BART analysis.
North Dakota identified the production of sulfuric acid as a side reaction with the SCR process chemistry. Sulfuric acid, which is not captured within the boiler or associated downstream emission control, is released to the atmosphere as sulfuric acid mist (SAM). North Dakota noted that SAM is emitted as aerosol particles that contribute to visibility impairment.
North Dakota's Updated BART analysis takes into account existing controls, including DryFining
Remaining useful life was not considered by North Dakota because Coal Creek is expected to operate beyond the life of the control equipment. Therefore, North Dakota evaluated the controls according to the remaining useful life timeframes listed in the EPA's Control Cost Manual: 30 years for SCR and 20 years for SNCR.
North Dakota considered California Puff (CALPUFF) dispersion modeling conducted by Coal Creek to assess the potential visibility improvement from the use of additional NO
The
After considering each of the five BART factors, States must demonstrate how those factors were taken into consideration in making a BART determination.
In summary, North Dakota concluded that the BART analysis demonstrates that the currently installed NO
On January 12, 2015, North Dakota submitted its 2015 progress report to the EPA as a SIP revision. Two Class I areas are located in North Dakota: Lostwood Wilderness Area and Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park Class I area is composed of three separate units: North Unit, Elkhorn Ranch Unit, and South Unit. In the first planning period, emissions from North Dakota sources were also found to be contributing to visibility impairment at nearby Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area and Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, Isle Royale National Park and Seney National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Area in Michigan, Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Area and U.L. Bend National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Area in Montana, and Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota.
North Dakota consulted with other States through regular participation in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP).
In the first planning period, the EPA required the following for BART: SO
North Dakota's 2015 progress report details the progress made in the first planning period toward implementation of the long-term strategy outlined in its 2010 SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured at the Class I areas affected by emissions from North Dakota, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP.
In its 2015 Progress Report, North Dakota included a description of the status of implementation of the measures included in the first planning period implementation plan, including current emissions rates, BART and reasonable progress limits, and implementation dates.
Additionally, North Dakota included an assessment of visibility conditions and changes on least-impaired days and most-impaired days for both Class I areas within the State (Lostwood Wilderness Area and Theodore Roosevelt National Park), including 5-year averages representing the most recent 5-year period preceding the required date of the progress report.
Further, North Dakota included an analysis tracking the change over the period since the period addressed in the most recent plan in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State—these numbers are also broken down by
North Dakota also included an assessment of changes in anthropogenic emissions within and outside of the State that have occurred since the period addressed in the most recent plan.
In its 2015 Progress Report, North Dakota includes an assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements are sufficient to enable North Dakota, and States with Class I areas impacted by North Dakota, to meet their reasonable progress goals for the first planning period.
North Dakota also included an assessment of its visibility monitoring strategy. North Dakota stated that it relies on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program for its monitoring strategy.
The EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's regional haze SIP submittal for the NO
• costs of compliance;
• energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance;
• existing pollution control equipment in use at the source;
• remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources; and
• visibility improvement anticipated to result from controls.
The State must consider these five factors in making BART determinations for a specific source.
The EPA is proposing to approve the portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal relating to the updated NO
To evaluate North Dakota's updated BART analysis for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 with respect to the cost of compliance, we first evaluate North Dakota's selection of baseline control technology and associated emission rates for analysis. Next, we evaluate North Dakota's characterization of the costs using the updated Control Cost Manual. Finally, we evaluate the reasonableness of the costs that North Dakota associated with the installation of LNC3+, LNC3+ w/SNCR, and LNC3+ w/SCR on Units 1 and 2 with respect to average and incremental cost-effectiveness, and the State's explanation for why requiring LNC3+ w/SNCR and LNC3+ w/SCR on Units 1 and 2 is unreasonable.
Both Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 utilize “low NO
North Dakota further noted that because the annual average NO
The revised NO
In its updated BART submission, North Dakota provided updated capital costs, annual costs, and average cost-effectiveness figures for LNC3+, LNC3+ w/SNCR, and LNC3+ w/SCR.
North Dakota also included incremental cost-effectiveness figures for LNC3+ w/SNCR and LNC3+ w/SCR.
In the revised cost analysis for the BART portion of the 2022 SIP submittal, North Dakota's cost estimates show an average cost-effectiveness for LNC3+ for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 of $683/ton of NO
Next, North Dakota analyzed the cost-effectiveness of LNC3+ w/SNCR. North Dakota's cost estimates show an average cost-effectiveness for LNC3+ w/SNCR for Units 1 and 2 of $3,348/ton of NO
Though the average cost-effectiveness value that North Dakota evaluated for LNC3+ w/SNCR of $3,348/ton of NO
With regard to SNCR, we find that it was reasonable for [Arizona] to conclude that the costs of SNCR were not warranted by the visibility benefits. In particular, with regard to costs, we are not aware of any instance in which the EPA has determined SNCR to be BART where the average cost-effectiveness of SNCR was greater than $3,000/ton and the incremental cost-effectiveness was roughly $7,000/ton, as is the case with Cholla Units 3 and 4. Similarly, we are not aware of any instance in which the EPA has disapproved a state's BART determination that rejected
In its 2022 SIP revision, North Dakota finds the selection of LNC3+ w/SNCR to be unwarranted based on an average cost-effectiveness of $3,348/ton, an incremental cost-effectiveness of $7,850/ton, and incremental visibility improvement ranging from 0.06-0.09 dv compared to LNC3+ alone.
Thus, the EPA finds that it was reasonable for North Dakota to conclude that the incremental visibility benefits of LNC3+ w/SNCR over LNC3+ alone do not warrant selection of LNC3+ w/SNCR given its incremental cost over LNC3+.
Lastly, North Dakota analyzed the cost-effectiveness of LNC3+ w/SCR. North Dakota evaluated cost-effectiveness under two different control efficiencies: 0.08 lb/MMBtu NO
In summary, the EPA finds that North Dakota's consideration of costs of compliance is reasonable and consistent with the Control Cost Manual, the BART Guidelines, EPA guidance, and the EPA's reasoning in other first planning period BART actions. Specifically, the EPA finds that: (1) LNC3+ is a reasonable cost control based on the circumstances of this SIP submittal; (2) the incremental visibility benefits of LNC3+ w/SNCR over LNC3+ alone (incremental visibility improvement ranging from 0.06-0.09 dv) do not warrant selection of LNC3+ w/SCNR given its incremental cost compared to LNC3+ ($7,850 per ton of NO
North Dakota considered a variety of energy and non-air quality impacts. For SCR control technology, North Dakota noted visibility impacts from SAM emissions and additional energy use and emissions of pollutants associated with low dust SCR systems. For SNCR, North Dakota estimated that the control technology would require 70-80 million gallons of water per year,
North Dakota's consideration of energy and non-air quality impacts satisfies the BART Guidelines in that it provides some additional support for North Dakota's decision to reasonably rule out SCR and SNCR based on cost.
As described in section III.C.3. and section IV.A.1.i. of this document, North Dakota's BART analysis in the 2022 SIP submittal considered existing controls on Coal Creek Units 1 and 2, including DryFining
North Dakota's approach of including voluntary existing controls in its evaluation of the BART factor “any existing pollution control technology in use at the source” is consistent with the Eighth Circuit's decision in
North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal notes that Coal Creek is expected to operate beyond the life of the control equipment evaluated for BART. North Dakota considered remaining useful life as an element of its cost analysis and applied the timeframes of 30 years for
The BART Guidelines advise that States “may decide to treat the requirement to consider the source's `remaining useful life' of the source for BART determinations as one element of the overall cost analysis. The `remaining useful life' of a source, if it represents a relatively short time period, may affect the annualized costs of retrofit controls.”
Even though North Dakota expects Coal Creek to operate beyond the life of the control equipment, the State chose to apply in its cost analyses the shorter timeframes of 30 years for SCR and 20 years for SNCR recommended in the EPA's Control Cost Manual.
North Dakota considered CALPUFF dispersion modeling conducted by Coal Creek to assess the potential visibility improvement from the use of additional NO
Table 2 in section III.C.5. of this document displays North Dakota's modeled average combined 98th percentile deciview improvement from 2000-2002 for Coal Creek Station Unit 1 and Unit 2. The modeling indicates that in general, there is an incremental improvement in deciview reductions for each increasingly stringent control technology option. For LNC3+ w/SNCR, the largest modeled deciview improvement (compared to Modeling Scenario 1) for Theodore Roosevelt National Park was 0.21, and for Lostwood was 0.21, with incremental visibility improvement from the addition of SNCR ranging from 0.06-0.09 dv (compared to LNC3+ alone). As noted in section IV.A.1.iii. of this document, the EPA finds that the incremental visibility benefits of LNC3+ w/SNCR over LNC3+ alone do not warrant selection of LNC3+ w/SNCR given its incremental cost compared to LNC3+. For LNC3+ w/SCR 5% SO
Because North Dakota conducted the modeling in accordance with the BART Guidelines and reasonably concluded that the difference in visibility improvements between installing LNC3+ versus LNC3+ w/SCR were relatively small, the EPA finds that North Dakota's consideration of visibility improvement was satisfactory.
In summary, the EPA proposes to approve the portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal that addresses North Dakota's NO
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” All areas in North Dakota are currently meeting the NAAQS.
The EPA finds that approval of the portion of North Dakota's August 2022 SIP submittal that addresses NO
Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), States are obligated to provide FLMs with an opportunity for consultation in development of the State's proposed SIP submittal no less than sixty days prior to the associated public hearing or public comment opportunity.
For the 2022 SIP submittal, North Dakota engaged with FLMs early in the planning process by participating in WRAP meetings and by holding separate calls with FLMs to discuss visibility impairment in Class I areas and the State's plans for the North Dakota 2022 SIP submittal. North Dakota also met via video conference with the NPS on November 6, 2020, and December 15, 2020, and with the USFS on November 23, 2020.
Upon completing its draft 2022 SIP submittal, North Dakota provided the draft to FLMs for a review and consultation period from September 20, 2021, through November 19, 2021, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
In consideration of these consultation actions, the EPA finds that North Dakota has satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to consult with the FLMs for the 2022 SIP submittal as it pertains to Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2 BART.
This section includes the EPA's analysis of North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report for the first planning period and an explanation of the basis of our proposed approval. As listed in section III.D. above, North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report included the elements required in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.308(h) of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, which was the applicable rule at the time of submission,
To meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), North Dakota included a description of the status of implementation of the measures included in the first planning period implementation plan, including current emissions rates, BART/reasonable progress limits, and implementation dates.
To satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), North Dakota included an assessment of visibility conditions and changes on least-impaired days and most-impaired days for both Class I areas within the State (Lostwood Wilderness Area and Theodore Roosevelt National Park) expressed in terms of 5-year averages of these annual values.
To meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), North Dakota included an analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years addressed within the 2015 progress report in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State; these numbers are also broken down by source category.
To satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), North Dakota included an assessment of changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside of the State that have occurred over the past 5 years addressed within the 2015 progress report.
To meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6), North Dakota included an assessment of the implementation plan elements that were current at the time of submission (including BART controls and reasonable progress controls resulting from the first planning period)..
North Dakota also included an assessment of its visibility monitoring strategy to address 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). North Dakota stated that it relies on the IMPROVE
North Dakota provided an opportunity for consultation with FLMs for the 2015 progress report by providing a copy of the draft progress report on June 25, 2014. The 2015 progress report was distributed to the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and EPA Region 8 staff. The National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the EPA provided comments.
Based on the information provided in North Dakota's 2015 progress report, the EPA proposes to approve North Dakota's 2015 progress report for the first planning period.
The EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's NO
The EPA conducted an environmental justice (EJ) screening analysis around the location of Coal Creek to identify potential environmental stressors on the nearby communities. The EPA is providing the information associated with this analysis for informational purposes only; it does not form any part of the basis of this proposed action.
The EPA conducted the screening analysis using EJScreen, an EJ mapping and screening tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and demographic indicators.
In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SIP amendments described in section VI. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed 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. The 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.” The 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.”
North Dakota did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice screening analysis, as described above in section VI. The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. There is no information in the record upon which this decision is based 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, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
In proposed rule document 2024-17751, appearing on pages 65575-65576 in the issue of Monday, August 12, 2024, make the following correction:
On page 65575, in the second column, the
The comment period for the proposed rule published on June 26, 2024, at 89 FR 53373, is reopened to allow for the opportunity to request a public hearing. To request a public hearing, please submit a comment per the instructions in the
Agency for International Development (USAID).
Notice of meeting; request for public comment.
The Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD), an independent advisory committee to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on food and agriculture issues, will convene a public meeting on September 17, 2024, “
September 17, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST.
The event is open to the public and will be hosted in person at the National Press Club, Holeman Lounge, at 529 14th St NW, Washington, DC 20045. Virtual participation will also be possible via Zoom. In-person seating is limited. In-person participants should register at:
Healthy diets that are diverse, safe, and nutritious are central to all development efforts. They are core to the work of USAID and Feed the Future, the U.S. Government's global hunger and food security initiative. However, food security investments have historically focused on supply-side interventions to increase the production of staple crops, and on livelihoods strengthening to broadly increase consumer purchasing power. Relatively less attention has been paid to promoting safe nutritious foods and generating consumer demand for them. Emerging evidence indicates that a supply-side approach, which largely neglects incorporating a nutrition-sensitive lens, may not be sufficient to achieve healthy diets and overcome malnutrition.
A public meeting on September 17, 2024 will inform BIFAD recommendations to shape the next steps in USAID's strategic thinking and policy prioritization towards the objective of achieving healthy diets for all. This meeting will address evidence and evidence gaps, areas for additional research, and prioritized approaches and actions for USAID, centered around demand-side interventions and approaches to improve the processing, storage, distribution, sale, purchase, and consumption of safe and nutritious food.
Also relevant is the interplay between businesses and consumers, including building strong relationships of trust, positive business behaviors, and informed consumer purchasing behaviors and preferences. The geographic focus will be on low- and middle-income contexts in Feed the Future Target Countries. The meeting will include a presentation of key findings from a review prepared for BIFAD and an expert roundtable event, to be posted publicly on September 3, 2024 at
Key questions to be addressed at the meeting include:
1. How can USAID work better with communities, national governments and private sector stakeholders to enhance consumer demand for safe and nutritious foods in ways that improve the diets of whole households, including women and children?
2. How can demand-focused interventions improve the affordability of healthy diets?
3. How can the progress and outcomes of demand-focused interventions be measured and evaluated?
The program will include Agency and stakeholder insights, a public comment period, and deliberation of draft findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For questions about BIFAD, or to submit written comments, evidence, or materials in advance or following the meeting, please use this feedback form
BIFAD is a seven-member, presidentially appointed advisory committee to USAID established in 1975 under title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to ensure that USAID brings the assets of U.S. universities to bear on development challenges in agriculture and food security, and supports their representation in USAID programming.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and Office of
Comments on this notice must be received on or before October 15, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705.
Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster,
Copies of forms used in this information collection can be obtained from Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster,
ARS is requesting an extension of 3 years for collecting information.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information for respondents; this includes using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
The Klamath National Forest is proposing to establish several recreation fee sites. Proposed recreation fees collected at the proposed recreation fee sites would be used for operation, maintenance, and improvement of the sites. An analysis of nearby recreation fee sites with similar amenities shows the proposed recreation fees that would be charged at the proposed recreation fee sites are reasonable and typical of similar recreation fee sites in the area.
If approved, the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees would be established no earlier than six months following the publication of this notice in the
Klamath National Forest, Attention: Recreation Fees, 1711 South Main St., Yreka, CA 96097.
Kristian Schenk, Recreation Management Specialist, 530-925-0232,
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish in the
A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $15 per night would be charged for Orr Lake, Mt Ashland, O'Neil Creek, and Big Flat campgrounds during primary season; and a proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $15 per night would be charged for Sarah Totten, Curly Jack, Tree of Heaven, and Indian Scotty campgrounds during shoulder season. A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $5 per extra vehicle would be charged for Sarah Totten, Curly Jack, Tree of Heaven, Indian Scotty, Kangaroo, and Juanita Lake campgrounds, as well as for Kangaroo yurts 1 and 2 and Tree of Heaven yurts 1 and 2.
A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $25 per night for double campsites would be charged for Orr Lake during primary season and for Tree of Heaven during shoulder season. A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $50 per night for groups up to 30 people would be charged for O'Neil Creek group campground during primary season and for Curly Jack and Sarah Totten group campgrounds during shoulder season. A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $65 per night for groups up to 50 people would be charged for Indian Scotty group campground during shoulder season. In addition, a proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $75 per night during the primary season and $50 per night during the shoulder season would be charged for rental of Tree of Heaven yurts 1 and 2; and a proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $75 per night during the primary season would be charged for the Kangaroo yurts 1 and 2.
A proposed standard amenity recreation fee of $5 per day per vehicle and $30 per year per vehicle would be charged at Juanita Lake, Tree of Heaven, Grouse Gap, Mt Ashland, Jones Beach, Kangaroo Lake, Lovers Camp, and Taylor Lake developed recreation sites. The Klamath National Forest Day Use and Annual Pass and the America the
Expenditures of recreation fees collected at the proposed recreation fee sites would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs. Once public involvement is complete, the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Reservations for campgrounds and cabins can be made online at
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet Authority), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Announcement of meeting.
The FirstNet Authority Board will convene an open public meeting of the Board and Board Committees.
August 21, 2024; 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. mountain time (MT); Salt Lake City, Utah.
The meeting will be held at the University of Utah Department of Public Safety—1658 East 500 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. Members of the public are not able to attend in-person but may listen to the meeting and view the presentation by joining from the WebEx meeting link:
If you experience technical difficulty, contact the FirstNet Authority Customer Support Service Desk at
Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health Puerto Rico LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico within Subzone 61AC. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 8, 2024.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material/component and specific finished product 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 product is finished/packaged heartworm treatment chewable tablets for canines (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status material/component is moxidectin (duty rate of 3.7%). 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 Kolade Osho at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the San Francisco Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 3, requesting production authority on behalf of Phillips 66 Company (Phillips), located in Rodeo, California. The application conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.23) was docketed on August 8, 2024.
The Phillips facility (650 employees) is located within Subzone 3E. The facility was used for petroleum refining and is in the process of being converted into a renewable fuels production facility. Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Phillips from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. The company anticipates that between eight to 14 percent of the plant's products will be exported. On its domestic sales, Phillips would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to treated renewable feedstock, sulfur, renewable fuels (naphtha; diesel; jet), sustainable jet fuel, butane, and mixed gas streams (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 8.0%, and 10.5¢/bbl) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Phillips would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 40 to 45% of the value of the finished product) include: animal fats; oils (soybean; canola; rapeseed; distiller's corn; used cooking); mixed fats, oils, and grease (also known as FOG); and, greases (trap; brown; yellow (a mix of animal fats that may include used cooking oil)) (duty rate ranges from 0.43¢/kg to 3¢/kg, 3.4% to 19.1%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Juanita Chen of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that the mandatory respondents under review sold pentafluoroethane (R-125) to the United States from the People's Republic of China (China) at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR), August 17, 2021, through February 28, 2023.
Applicable August 14, 2024.
Andrew Hart or Samantha Kinney, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1058 or (202) 482-2285, respectively.
On April 3, 2024, Commerce published in the
On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days.
The products subject to the
All issues raised in briefs filed by parties in this administrative review 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
Commerce determines that the Sanmei Companies
Under Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity,
Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
For the companies subject to this review that established their eligibility for a separate rate, Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 17, 2021, through February 28, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review to interested parties within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
For the Sanmei Companies and the Yonghe Companies, Commerce will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by the exporter individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Upon publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders with July anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable August 14, 2024.
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with July anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
In the event that Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based either on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR) or questionnaires in which we request the quantity and value (Q&V) of sales, shipments, or exports during the POR. Where Commerce selects respondents based on CBP data, we intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice. Where Commerce selects respondents based on Q&V data, Commerce intends to place the Q&V questionnaire on the record of the review within five days of publication of the initiation notice. In either case, we intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation
In the event that Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in
With respect to AD administrative reviews, we intend to rescind the review where there are no suspended entries for a company or entity under review and/or where there are no suspended entries under the company-specific case number for that company or entity. Where there may be suspended entries, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the POR, it may notify Commerce of this fact within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single AD deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews of AD orders in which a Q&V Questionnaire is issued must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, and respond to the Q&V Questionnaire.
For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
Exporters
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than July 31, 2025.
None.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether ADs have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order (
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires;
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
This notice announces the Secretary of Commerce's approval of three Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS): FIPS 203, Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard; FIPS 204, Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard; and FIPS 205, Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Standard. These standards specify key establishment and digital signature schemes that are designed to resist future attacks by quantum computers, which threaten the security of current standards. The three algorithms specified in these standards are each derived from different submissions in the NIST post-quantum cryptography standardization project (see
FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205 are effective on August 14, 2024.
FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205 are available electronically on the NIST Computer Security Resource Center website at
Dr. Dustin Moody, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, email:
Over the past several years, there has been steady progress toward building quantum computers. The security of many commonly used public-key cryptosystems would be at risk if large-scale quantum computers were ever realized. In particular, this would
NIST issued a public call for submissions to the Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Standardization Process in December 2016. Prior to the November 2017 deadline, a total of 82 candidate algorithms were submitted. Shortly thereafter, the 69 candidates that met both the submission requirements and the minimum acceptability criteria were accepted into the first round of the standardization process. Submission packages for the first-round candidates were posted online for public review and comment.
After a year-long review of the candidates, NIST selected 26 algorithms to move on to the second round of evaluation in January 2019. These algorithms were viewed as the most promising candidates for eventual standardization and were selected based on both internal analysis and public feedback. During the second round of evaluation, there was continued evaluation of the analyses by NIST and the broader cryptographic community. After consideration of these analyses and other public input received throughout the evaluation process, NIST selected seven finalists and eight alternates to move on to the third round of evaluation in July 2020.
The third round of evaluation began in July 2020 and continued for approximately 18 months. During the third round of evaluation, there was a more thorough analysis of the theoretical and empirical evidence used to justify the security of the 15 candidates (
After three rounds of evaluation and analysis, NIST selected four algorithms it will standardize as a result of the PQC Standardization Process. The public-key encapsulation mechanism selected was CRYSTALS-KYBER, along with three digital signature schemes: CRYSTALS-Dilithium, FALCON, and SPHINCS+. It is intended that these algorithms will be capable of protecting sensitive U.S. Government information well into the foreseeable future, including after the advent of quantum computers.
FIPS 203 specifies a cryptographic scheme called Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism, or ML-KEM, which is derived from the CRYSTALS-KYBER submission. A Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) is a particular type of key establishment scheme which can be used to establish a shared secret key between two parties communicating over a public channel. Current NIST-approved key establishment schemes are specified in SP 800-56A,
FIPS 204 and 205 each specify digital signature schemes, which are used to detect unauthorized modifications to data and to authenticate the identity of the signatory. FIPS 204 specifies the Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA), which is derived from the CRYSTALS-Dilithium submission. FIPS 205 specifies the Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (SLH-DSA), which is derived from the SPHINCS+ submission. Current NIST-approved digital signature schemes are specified in FIPS 186-5,
NIST published a notice in the
The following is a summary and analysis of the comments received during the public comment period and NIST's responses to them, including the interests, concerns, recommendations, and issues considered in the development of FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205:
Response: Detailed implementation guidance, including side-channel attack countermeasures, are outside the scope of the algorithm specifications described in FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205.
The following is a summary of the changes made to FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205.
In FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205, the main functions now each call an internal derandomized function in order to facilitate validation of implementations of these algorithms. In FIPS 203, this applies to KeyGen, Encaps and Decaps. In FIPS 204 and FIPS 205, this applies to KeyGen, Sign, and Verify. In addition, to offer misuse resistance against the possibility that keys for different parameter sets might be expanded from the same seed, domain separation was added to the key generation routine.
In FIPS 203 and FIPS 204, a new API is now used to invoke functions from the SHAKE family. This API allows for appropriately streaming pseudorandom bytes from a SHAKE XOF in situations where no a-priori bound is known on the total number of needed bytes. This API will also be described and used in the next revision of NIST SP 800-185,
Language was added in FIPS 203 and FIPS 204 to clarify that some intermediate values can be stored in order to speed up certain computations. Some of these stored values can be computed from the public key, and thus do not require any special safeguards, while others require the same protections as the private key.
In FIPS 203 and FIPS 204, it is now permitted to terminate certain rejection sampling loops once a required minimum number of attempts is made.
The differences between CRYSTAL-KYBER and ML-KEM are now described in Appendix C of FIPS 203.
Based on comments submitted on draft FIPS 203, domain separation was added to the key generation routine to prevent the misuse of keys generated to target one security level from being used for a different security level when saving a key as a seed.
The draft of FIPS 203 had inadvertently changed the order in which the algorithms generated the entries of the matrix A in the public key of ML-KEM. This was changed back in the final specification of ML-KEM in FIPS 203 to match CRYSTALS-KYBER as specified in the third round of the PQC Standardization Process.
The differences between CRYSTAL-Dilithium and ML-DSA are now described in Appendix D of FIPS 204. Based on comments that were submitted on the draft version, in the final version of ML-DSA, as specified in FIPS 204, the malformed input check, which had
Based on comments that were submitted on draft FIPS 204, more details were provided for the pre-hash version, HashML-DSA. These modifications include domain separation for the cases in which the message is signed directly and cases in which a digest of the message is signed. The changes were made by modifying the inputs to the internal signing and verification functions.
The differences between SPHINCS+ specification and SLH-DSA are described in Appendix A of FIPS 205. Based on comments that were submitted on draft FIPS 205, the SLH-DSA signature generation and verification functions were modified to include domain separation cases in which the message is signed directly and cases in which a digest of the message is signed. The changes were made by modifying the inputs to the signing and verification functions.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Phillips 66 Co. to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with a dock replacement project in Ferndale, Washington.
This authorization is effective from August 1 through July 31, 2025.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Jennifer Gatzke, 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 monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On February 29, 2024 we received a request from Phillips 66 for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale Refinery Dock Maintenance and Pile Replacement Activities in Ferndale, Washington. Following NMFS' review of the application, Phillips 66 submitted revised versions on May 16 and May 20, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on May 21, 2024. Phillips 66 has requested authorization of take by Level B harassment for harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion and harbor porpoise. Neither Phillips 66 nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. There are no changes from the proposed authorization to the final authorization.
Phillips 66 is planning to modernize the existing timber loading dock (on the southeastern shoreline of the Strait of Georgia in Ferndale, Washington) and replace it with a stronger structure that meets current industry best practices. The activity includes installation of steel piles by vibratory driving, and pile removal using an underwater chainsaw or cutting torch.
In-water pile installation construction will occur for 35 days, which will occur intermittently through approximately October 31, 2024. Take of marine mammals is anticipated to occur due to vibratory pile installation. Removal of all piles is expected to take up to 66 days for underwater pile cutting with a chainsaw. Take of marine mammals is not anticipated to occur due to pile removal.
This IHA is valid for a period of 1 year from the date of issuance. Due to in-water work timing restrictions to protect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonids, all planned in-water construction in this area is limited to a work window beginning August 1 and ending February 1. However, since the Strait of Georgia is a very large water body with a long fetch, calm in-water work conditions are typically only available from August to the end of October. Pile removal processes are less dependent on good weather, and this portion of the project may occur from approximately August 1 to February 1. Therefore, Phillips 66 expects that in-water pile installation construction work will occur through October 31, 2024. Pile driving is anticipated to take up to 35 days to complete. Work may occur on nonconsecutive days due to weather and other project needs. Pile driving will be completed intermittently throughout daylight hours.
A detailed description of the planned dock maintenance and pile replacement project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Phillips 66 was published in the
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 2 lists all species or stocks for which exposure is expected for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and 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 managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: (
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
The effects of underwater noise from Phillip's 66 dock replacement activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the southeastern shores of the Strait of Georgia, in Puget Sound WA. The notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of underwater noise from vibratory pile driving on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is referenced in this final IHA determination and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 53046, June 25, 2024).
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which informs NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes will be by Level B harassment only, as use of the acoustic stressors (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals will be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment).
The Phillips 66 activity includes the use of continuous sound sources (vibratory driving), and therefore the RMS SPL threshold of 120 dB re 1 μPa is applicable.
These thresholds are provided in the table 4 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 TL coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
TL is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source.
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as the project site, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is assumed here.
The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate the distances to the Level B harassment sound thresholds for the method and piles being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop proxy source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods. The project includes vibratory pile installation of 20-in steel piles. Source levels for the pile size and driving method are presented in table 5. The closest representative pile size for reference sound levels was 24-inch piles (WSDOT 2020).
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as impact or vibratory pile driving and removal, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. Inputs used for impact driving in the optional NMFS User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting estimated isopleths, are reported below in table 6 and table 7 below.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations. The primary source for density estimates is from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD) Phase III for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area (Navy, 2019). These density estimates are shown in table 8 and will be used to calculate take due to the lack of site-specific data that is available.
To quantitatively assess potential exposure of marine mammals to noise levels from pile driving over the NMFS threshold guidance, the following equation was first used to provide an estimate of potential exposures within estimated harassment zones:
Potential Level A harassment zones were all calculated to less than 10 meters. As seen from table 7, marine mammals will have to be very close to the vibratory driving activity to be within the estimated Level A harassment zone. Marine mammal monitors will be in place, closely monitoring this zone and stopping work before any marine mammal gets near the largest Level A harassment zone of 6.2m from the project source. Based on the estimated Level A harassment zones, and density-based calculations for all species, no take by Level A Harassment was estimated (all less than 1.0). Harbor porpoise is the species with the highest density at 2.16 per km, multiplied by the Level A harassment zone of .007 km (table 7), and 35 days of work yields 0.53 individuals exposed to Level A harassment. Therefore, when considered in context of planned mitigation, no take by Level A harassment is expected. Table 9 below shows the total calculated take by Level B harassment over the 35 in-water work days planned for the Phillips 66 activity resulting in total calculated take.
Humpback whales are an uncommon occurrence near the project area but they do have the potential to be in the area as they migrate to feeding grounds to the north and mating grounds far south. Based on best available density estimates, Phillips 66 has calculated the potential take of one humpback whale, by Level B harassment only. However, Phillips 66 proposes to shut down whenever humpback whales approach
Both SRKW and transient killer whales could potentially occur near the project area. Based on best available density estimates, Phillips 66 has calculated that up to two SRKWs and one transient whale could be taken, by Level B harassment only. Even though the project site is located in summer core area critical habitat, and the project may begin August 1, the southeastern corner of the Strait of Georgia (where the project is located) is not a location where SRKW are commonly sighted. According to the monthly ORCA network reports of September through October, from 2016-2023, the occurrence of killer whales from any stock was uncommon in the southeastern corner of the Strait of Georgia. When compared to transient killer whales, sightings of SRKWs were far less prevalent (ORCA 2024). Mitigation requires that pile driving activity shut down whenever a killer whale from any stock is observed approaching a harassment zone. Given the ability to visually detect killer whales from proposed PSO locations (including boats), the capacity to track this species through contact with the ORCA Network, and the expected efficacy of mitigation and monitoring measures, Phillips 66 elected to not request take. Due to the expansive range of SRKWs; the relatively small area of their habitat that may be affected by the project; the ready availability of habitat of similar or higher value, and the short-term nature of installation construction (35 days), Phillips 66 determined that no take of killer whales is likely to occur and did not request that any such take be authorized. NMFS concurs with this request and, therefore, has not authorized take of killer whales.
Calculated take based upon the species density in the Strait of Georgia yielded one potential take by Level B harassment during the 35 days of in-water pile driving work. While there are no known nearby haulouts, there are haulouts in the greater Strait of Georgia. Phillips 66 determined, based on anecdotal sightings at the facility, that the calculated value was too low. In addition, this species is known to travel significant distances in search for prey, possibly into the surrounding marine waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.
NMFS reviewed other IHA monitoring reports from Puget Sound and found that the Seattle Pier 63 construction project (87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022) reported a maximum of one animal present per day over 17 in-water work days between October 12 and November 30, 2022. Therefore, NMFS assumes a similar rate of occurrence and has authorized 35 (one/day) takes of Steller sea lion by Level B harassment.
Calculated take based upon the species density in the Strait of Georgia found 4 potential takes by Level B harassment during the 35 days of pile driving work at the Phillips 66 dock. While there are no known nearby haulouts, there are haulouts in the greater Strait of Georgia. Phillips 66 determined, based on anecdotal sightings at the facility, that the calculated value was too low. In addition, this species is known to travel significant distances in search for prey, possibly into the surrounding marine waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.
NMFS reviewed other IHA monitoring reports from Puget Sound and found that the Seattle Pier 63 construction project (87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022) reported a maximum of three California sea lions present per day over 17 in-water work days between October 12 and November 30, 2022. Therefore, NMFS assumes a similar rate of occurrence and has authorized 105 (three/day) takes of California sea lions by Level B Harassment.
Details of takes by Level B harassment as a percentage of stocks are shown in table 10.
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. 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
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations.
A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m would be required for all in-water construction activities to avoid physical interaction with marine mammals. Proposed shutdown and monitoring zones for each activity type are shown in table 11.
All marine mammals would be monitored in the Level B harassment zones and throughout the area as far as visual monitoring can take place. If one of the four species of marine mammal for which take would be authorized enters the Level B harassment zone, in-water activities would continue and PSOs would document the animal's presence within the estimated harassment zone.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species which has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B harassment zone, pile driving activities will be shut down immediately. Activities will not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or 15 minutes has elapsed with no sighting of the animal.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has determined that these mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Monitoring shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers. Trained observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator. Observer training must be provided prior to project start, and shall include instruction on species identification (sufficient to distinguish the species in the project area), description and categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity, proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
A minimum of two PSOs would be on duty during all in-water pile driving activities. One `shore-based' observer will be stationed at locations offering best line of sight views to monitor the entirety of the shutdown zones and provide the most complete coverage of the monitoring zones. Additionally, Phillips 66 proposes to deploy one boat-based PSO that will be positioned at a location or moving in a pattern that offers the most complete visual coverage of the monitoring zone. Note, however, PSO position(s) may vary based on construction activity and location of piles or equipment.
PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars and would use a handheld range-finder device to verify the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs would be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In addition, monitoring would be conducted by qualified observers, who would be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator via a radio. Phillips 66 would adhere to the following observer qualifications:
(i) PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods,
(ii) At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization,
(iii) Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field), or training for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization,
(iv) Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization,
(v) PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to this IHA.
Additional standard observer qualifications include:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and,
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities. It would include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring,
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or removed and by what method, and the total equipment duration or total number of minutes for each pile (vibratory driving),
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring,
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance,
• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; Time of sighting; Identification of the animal(s) (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zone, by species,
• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, Phillips 66 would immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region regional stranding coordinator. The report will include the following information:
• Description of the incident;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Phillips 66 to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Phillips 66 will not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that Phillips 66 discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
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 majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 9, given that many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving activities associated with the project as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level B harassment identified above when these activities are underway.
Take by Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance, and TTS. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).
Based on reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, behavioral disturbance (
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish or invertebrates to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the intermittent driving schedule (35 in-water work days between August 1 and October 31, 2024); short duration of the activities (no more than 4 hours per day vibratory driving); the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected; and the availability of nearby habitat of similar or higher value, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
While there are haulouts for pinnipeds in the area, these locations are some distance from the actual project site. There are two documented California sea lion haulouts in the southern Strait of Georgia, both on the western coast of the Strait in British Columbia. The closest haulout in near Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the Gulf Island, over 15 miles from the project site. The closest documented Steller sea lion haulout location is over 10 miles from the project site, on Sucia Island (Jeffries
While repeated exposures of individuals to this pile driving activity could cause limited Level B harassment in harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and sea lions, they are unlikely to considerably disrupt foraging behavior or result in significant decrease in fitness, reproduction, or survival for the affected individuals.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would not result in fitness impacts to individuals;
• The ensonifed area from the project is very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and no habitat of particular importance would be impacted;
• Repeated exposures of marine mammals to this pile driving activity could cause Level B harassment in seals, harbor porpoise and sea lion species, but are unlikely to considerably disrupt foraging behavior or result in significant decrease in fitness, reproduction, or survival for the affected individuals. In all, there would be no adverse impacts to the stocks as a whole; and
• The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the effects of the specified activity by minimizing the intensity and/or duration of harassment events.
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 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.
Table 8 demonstrates the number of instances in which individuals of a given species could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause take of marine mammals. Our analysis shows that the total taking authorized is less than 4 percent of the best available population abundance estimate for all species.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken, relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
NMFS has issued an IHA to Phillips 66 for the potential harassment of small numbers of 4 marine mammal species incidental to the Ferndale Refinery Dock Replacement in-water pile driving activities in Ferndale Washington, that includes the previously explained mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Ari Friedlaender, Ph.D., University of California at Santa Cruz, 115 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on eight whale species.
Written comments must be received on or before September 13, 2024.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Amy Hapeman or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to conduct research on eight species of whales in the Southern Ocean to understand their population demography, health, behavior, and ecology. Species targeted for study are: Antarctic minke (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
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 Office of Naval Research (ONR) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities (ARA) in the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea. 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. The ONR's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA).
Comments and information must be received no later than September 13, 2024.
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
Alyssa Clevenstine, 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 monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as applied to a “military readiness activity.” The activity for which incidental take of marine mammals is being requested qualifies as a military readiness activity.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In 2018, the U.S. Navy prepared an Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) analyzing the project. Prior to issuing the IHA for the first year of this project, NMFS reviewed the 2018 EA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued a NMFS Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in support of the issuance of an IHA (83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018).
In 2019, the Navy prepared a supplemental OEA. Prior to issuing the IHA in 2019, NMFS reviewed the supplemental OEA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued a NMFS FONSI in support of the issuance of an IHA (84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019).
In 2020, the Navy submitted a request for a renewal of the 2019 IHA. Prior to issuing the renewal IHA, NMFS reviewed ONR's application and determined that the proposed action was identical to that considered in the previous IHA. Because no significantly new circumstances or information relevant to any environmental concerns had been identified, NMFS determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document was not necessary and relied on the supplemental OEA and FONSI from 2019 when issuing the renewal IHA in 2020 (85 FR 41560, July 10, 2020).
In 2021, the Navy submitted a request for an IHA for incidental take of marine mammals during continuation of ARA. NMFS reviewed the Navy's OEA and determined it to be sufficient for taking into consideration the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from continuation of the ARA. NMFS subsequently adopted that OEA and signed a FONSI (86 FR 54931, October 5, 2021).
In 2022, the Navy submitted a request for an IHA for incidental take of marine mammals during continuation of ARA and prepared an OEA analyzing the project. Prior to issuing the IHA for the project, we reviewed the 2022-2025 OEA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued our own FONSI in support of the issuance of an IHA (87 FR 57458, September 20, 2022).
In 2023, the ONR requested a renewal of the 2022 IHA for ongoing ARA from September 2023 to September 2024, and the 2022 IHA monitoring report. Prior to issuing the renewal IHA, NMFS reviewed ONR's application and determined that the proposed action was identical to that considered in the previous IHA. Because no significantly new circumstances or information relevant to any environmental concerns were identified, NMFS determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document was not necessary and relied on the supplemental OEA and FONSI from 2022 when issuing the renewal IHA in 2023 (88 FR 65657, September 18, 2023).
Accordingly, NMFS preliminarily has determined to adopt the Navy's OEA for ONR ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 2022-2025, provided our independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing the IHA. NMFS is a not cooperating agency on the U.S. Navy's OEA.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On March 29, 2024, NMFS received a request from the ONR for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Following NMFS' review of the application, the ONR submitted a revised version on July 23, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on August 5, 2024. The ONR's request is for take of beluga whales and ringed seals by Level B harassment only. Neither the ONR nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This proposed IHA would cover the seventh year of a larger project for which ONR obtained prior IHAs and renewal IHAs (83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333, August 28, 2020; 86 FR 54931, October 5, 2021; 87 FR 57458, September 20, 2022; 88 FR 65657, September 18, 2023). ONR has complied with all the requirements (
The ONR proposes to conduct scientific experiments in support of ARA using active acoustic sources within the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Project activities involve acoustic testing and a multi-frequency navigation system concept test using left-behind active acoustic sources. The proposed experiments involve the deployment of moored, drifting, and ice-tethered active acoustic sources from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq. Recovery of equipment may be from R/V Sikuliaq,
The proposed action would occur from September 2024 through September 2025 and include up to two research cruises. Acoustic testing would take place during the cruises, with the first cruise beginning September 2, 2024, and a potential second cruise occurring in summer or fall 2025, which may include up to 8 days of icebreaking activities.
The proposed action would occur across the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, partially in the high seas north of Alaska, the Global Commons, and within a part of the Canadian EEZ (in which the appropriate permits would be obtained by the Navy) (figure 1). The proposed action would primarily occur in the Beaufort Sea but the analysis considers the drifting of active sources on buoys into the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea. The closest point of the study area to the Alaska coast is 204 kilometers (km; 110 nautical miles (nm)). The proposed study area is approximately 639,267 square kilometers (km
The ONR ARA Global Prediction Program supports two major projects: Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA) and Arctic Mobile Observing System (AMOS). The SODA and AMOS projects have been previously discussed in association with previously issued IHAs (83 FR 40234, August 14, 2018; 84 FR 37240, July 31, 2019). However, only activities relating to the AMOS project will occur during the period covered by this proposed action.
The proposed action constitutes the development of a modified system under the ONR AMOS involving very-low-, low-, and mid-frequency (VLF, LF, MF) transmissions (35 Hertz (Hz), 900 Hz, and 10 kilohertz (kHz), respectively). The AMOS project utilizes acoustic sources and receivers to provide a means of performing under-ice navigation for gliders and unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). This would allow for the possibility of year-round scientific observations of the environment in the Arctic. As an environment that is particularly affected by climate change, year-round observations under a variety of ice conditions are required to study the
Up to six moorings (four fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hz, two fixed VLF sources transmitting at 35 Hz) and two drifting ice gateway buoys (IGBs) would be configured with active acoustic sources and would operate for a period of up to 1 year. Four gliders with passive acoustics would be used to support drifting IGBs. No UUV use is planned during the September 2024 research cruise; however, there is the potential for one UUV (without active acoustic sources) to be deployed and up to 8 days of icebreaking activities to occur on a potential research cruise in summer/fall 2025, which would require the use of a vessel with ice-breaking capabilities (
During the research cruise, acoustic sources would be deployed from the vessel for intermittent testing of the system components, which would take place in the vicinity of the source locations (figure 1). During this testing, 35 Hz, 900 Hz, 10 kHz, and acoustic modems would be employed. The six fixed moorings would be anchored on the seabed and held in the water column with subsurface buoys.
Autonomous vehicles would be able to navigate by receiving acoustic signals from multiple locations and triangulating. This is needed for vehicles that are under ice and cannot communicate with satellites. Source transmits would be offset by 15 minutes from each other (
The proposed action would utilize non-impulsive acoustic sources, although not all sources will cause take of marine mammals (tables 1, 2). Marine mammal takes would arise from the operation of non-impulsive active sources. Although not currently planned, icebreaking could occur as part of this proposed action if a research vessel needs to return to the study area before the end of the IHA period to ensure scientific objectives are met. In this case, icebreaking could result in Level B harassment.
Below are descriptions of the platforms and equipment that would be deployed at different times during the proposed activity.
The R/V Sikuliaq would perform the research cruise in September 2024 and conduct testing of acoustic sources during the cruise, as well as leave sources behind to operate as a year-round navigation system observation. The vessel to be used in a potential 2025 cruise is yet to be determined but the most probable option would be the CGC HEALY.
The R/V Sikuliaq has a maximum speed of approximately 12 knots (22.2 km per hour (km/hr)) with a cruising speed of 11 knots (20.4 km/hr). The R/V Sikuliaq is not an icebreaking ship but an ice strengthened ship. It would not be icebreaking and therefore acoustic signatures of icebreaking for the R/V Sikuliaq are not relevant. CGC HEALY travels at a maximum speed of 17 knots (31.5 km/hr) with a cruising speed of 12 knots (22.2 km/hr) and a maximum speed of 3 knots (5.6 km/hr) when traveling through 1.07 m (3.5 ft) of sea ice. While no icebreaking cruise on the CGC HEALY is scheduled during the IHA period, need may arise. Therefore, for the purposes of this IHA application, an icebreaking cruise is considered.
The R/V Sikuliaq, CGC HEALY, or any other vessel operating a research cruise associated with the Proposed Action may perform the following activities during their research cruises:
• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered passive sensors (oceanographic measurement devices, acoustic receivers);
• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered active acoustic sources to transmit acoustic signals;
• Deployment of UUVs;
• Deployment of drifting buoys, with or without acoustic sources; or,
• Recovery of equipment.
Glider surveys are proposed for the research cruise. All gliders would be recovered; some may be recovered during the cruise, but the remainder would be recovered at a later date. Up to four gliders would be deployed during the research cruise as part of on-ice operations (one to two gliders would be associated with each on-ice station).
Long-endurance, autonomous sea gliders are intended for use in extended missions in ice-covered waters. Gliders are buoyancy-driven, equipped with satellite modems providing two-way communication, and are capable of transiting to depths of up to 1,000 m (3,280 ft). Gliders would collect data in the area of the shallow water sources and moored sources, moving at a speed of 0.25 meters per second (m/s; 23 kilometers per day (km/day)). A combination of recent advances in sea glider technology would provide full-year endurance. When operating in ice-covered waters, gliders navigate by trilateration (the process of determining location by measurement of distances, using the geometry of circles, spheres or triangles) from moored acoustic sound sources (or dead reckoning should navigation signals be unavailable); they do not contain any active acoustic sources. Hibernating gliders would continue to track their position, waking to reposition should they drift too far from their target region. Gliders would measure temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, rates of dissipation of temperature variance (and vertical turbulent diffusivity), and multi-spectral down welling irradiance.
During the September 2024 cruise, active acoustic sources would be lowered from the cruise vessel while stationary, deployed on gliders and UUVs, or deployed on fixed AMOS and VLF moorings for intermittent testing of the system components. The testing would take place in the vicinity of the source locations in figure 1. During this testing, 35 Hz, 900 Hz, 10 kHz, and acoustic modems would be employed. No UUV use is planned during the September 2024 research cruise but UUV use may be included in future test plans covered by this IHA.
Up to four fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hz would remain in place for a year. These moorings would be anchored on the seabed and held in the water column with subsurface buoys. All sources would be deployed by shipboard winches, which would lower sources and receivers in a controlled manner. Anchors would be steel “wagon wheels” typically used for this type of deployment. Two VLF sources transmitting at 35 Hz would be deployed in a similar manner. Two drifting IGBs would also be configured with active acoustic sources.
The following activities have been determined to be unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. These activities are described here but they are not discussed further in this notice.
A WHOI micromodem will also be employed during the leave behind period. In contrast with the WHOI micromodem usage described in table 1, which covers the use of the micromodem during research cruises, the use of the source during the leave behind period differs in nature. During this period, it is being used for very intermittent communication with vehicles to communicate vehicle status for safety of navigation purposes, and is treated as de minimis while employed in this manner.
Drifting Oceanographic Sensors—Observations of ocean-ice interactions require the use of sensors that are moored and embedded in the ice. For the proposed action, it will not be required to break ice to do this, as deployments can be performed in areas of low ice-coverage or free floating ice. Sensors are deployed within a few dozen meters of each other on the same ice floe. Three types of sensors would be used: autonomous ocean flux buoys, Integrated Autonomous Drifters, and ice-tethered profilers. The autonomous ocean flux buoys measure oceanographic properties just below the ocean-ice interface. The autonomous ocean flux buoys would have ADCPs and temperature chains attached, to measure temperature, salinity, and other ocean parameters the top 6 m (20 ft) of the water column. Integrated Autonomous Drifters would have a long temperate string extending down to 200 m (656 ft) depth and would incorporate meteorological sensors, and a temperature spring to estimate ice thickness. The ice-tethered profilers would collect information on ocean temperature, salinity, and velocity down to 250 m (820 ft) depth.
Up to 20 Argo-type autonomous profiling floats may be deployed in the central Beaufort Sea. Argo float drift at 1,500 m (4,921 ft) depth, profiling from 2,000 m (6,562 ft) to the sea surface once every 10 days to collect profiles of
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 3 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 managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska SARs (Young
As indicated above, both species (with three managed stocks) in table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While bowhead whales (
Due to the location of the study area (
The ONR utilized Conn
In addition, the polar bear (
Beluga whales are distributed throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere (Gurevich, 1980), and are closely associated with open leads and polynyas in ice-covered regions (Hazard, 1988). Belugas may be either migratory or residential (non-migratory), depending on the population. Seasonal distribution is affected by ice cover, tidal conditions, access to prey, temperature, and human interaction (Frost
There are five beluga whale stocks recognized within U.S. waters: Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea. Two stocks, the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea stocks, have the potential to occur in the location of this proposed action.
Migratory Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for belugas in the eastern Chukchi and Alaskan Beaufort Sea overlap the southern and western portion of the Study Area (Clarke
During the winter, eastern Chukchi Sea belugas occur in offshore waters associated with pack ice. In the spring, they migrate to warmer coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers where they may molt (Finley, 1982; Suydam, 2009), give birth to, and care for their calves (Sergeant and Brodie, 1969). Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal areas, including Kasegaluk Lagoon (outside of the proposed project site), in late June and animals are sighted in the area until about mid-July (Frost and Lowry, 1990; Frost
Ringed seals are the most common pinniped in the Study Area and have wide distribution in seasonally and permanently ice-covered waters of the Northern Hemisphere (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, 2004). Throughout their range, ringed seals have an affinity for ice-covered waters and are well adapted to occupying both shore-fast and pack ice (Kelly, 1988). Ringed seals can be found further offshore than other pinnipeds since they can maintain breathing holes in ice thickness greater than 2 m (6.6 ft) (Smith and Stirling, 1975). The breathing holes are maintained by ringed seals using their sharp teeth and claws found on their fore flippers. They remain in contact with ice most of the year and use it as a platform for molting in late spring to early summer, for pupping and nursing in late winter to
Ringed seals have at least two distinct types of subnivean lairs: Haulout lairs and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling, 1975). Haul-out lairs are typically single-chambered and offer protection from predators and cold weather. Birthing lairs are larger, multi-chambered areas that are used for pupping in addition to protection from predators. Ringed seals pup on both shore-fast ice as well as stable pack ice. Lentfer (1972) found that ringed seals north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, build their subnivean lairs on the pack ice near pressure ridges. Since subnivean lairs were found north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, in pack ice, they are also assumed to be found within the sea ice in the proposed project site. Ringed seals excavate subnivean lairs in drifts over their breathing holes in the ice, in which they rest, give birth, and nurse their pups for 5-9 weeks during late winter and spring (Chapskii, 1940; McLaren, 1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975). Ringed seals are born beginning in March but the majority of births occur in early April. About a month after parturition, mating begins in late April and early May.
In Alaskan waters, during winter and early spring when sea ice is at its maximum extent, ringed seals are abundant in the northern Bering Sea, Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort seas (Frost, 1985; Kelly, 1988). Passive acoustic monitoring of ringed seals from a high frequency recording package deployed at a depth of 240 m (787 ft) in the Chukchi Sea 120 km (65 nm) north-northwest of Utqiaġvik, Alaska detected ringed seals in the area between mid-December and late May over the 4 year study (Jones
With the onset of fall freeze, ringed seal movements become increasingly restricted and seals will either move west and south with the advancing ice pack with many seals dispersing throughout the Chukchi and Bering Seas, or remaining in the Beaufort Sea (Crawford
Of the five recognized subspecies of ringed seals, the Arctic ringed seal occurs in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and is the only stock that occurs in U.S. waters. NMFS listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies as threatened under the ESA on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706), primarily due to anticipated loss of sea ice through the end of the 21st century. Climate change presents a major concern for the conservation of ringed seals due to the potential for long-term habitat loss and modification (Muto
Critical habitat for the ringed seal was designated in May 2022 and includes marine waters within one specific area in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022). Essential features established by NMFS for conservation of ringed seals are (1) snow-covered sea ice habitat suitable for the formation and maintenance of subnivean birth lairs used for sheltering pups during whelping and nursing, which is defined as waters 3 m (9.8 ft) or more in depth (relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)) containing areas of seasonal land-fast (shore-fast) ice or dense, stable pack ice, that have undergone deformation and contain snowdrifts of sufficient depth to form and maintain birth lairs (typically at least 54 cm (21.3 in) deep); (2) sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for basking and molting, which is defined as areas containing sea ice of 15 percent or more concentration in waters 3 m (9.8 ft) or more in depth (relative to MLLW); and (3) primary prey resources to support Arctic ringed seals, which are defined to be small, often schooling, fishes, in particular Arctic cod (
The Study Area does not overlap with ringed seal critical habitat (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022). However, as stated in NMFS' final rule for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022), the area excluded from the critical habitat contains one or more of the essential features of the Arctic ringed seal's critical habitat, therefore, even though this area is excluded from critical habitat designation, habitat with the physical and biological features essential for ringed seal conservation is still available to the species, although data are limited to inform NMFS' assessment of the relative value of this area to the conservation of the species. As described later and in more detail in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, we expect minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat as a result of the ONR's ARA, including impacts to ringed seal sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for basking and molting and impacts on prey availability.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
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.
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (ANSI, 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (
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 shipping 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 the 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
Active acoustic sources and icebreaking, if necessary, are proposed for use in the Study Area. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (
The likely or possible impacts of the ONR's proposed action on marine mammals involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of vessels, equipment, and personnel (
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from active acoustic sources and noise from icebreaking is the means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the ONR's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience behavioral, physiological, and/or physical effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB and TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)—NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB TS approximates PTS onset (see Ward
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see Southall
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran, 2015; Southall
The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity (
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 decibels above that inducing mild TTS (
Activities for this project include active acoustics, equipment deployment and recovery, and, potentially, icebreaking. For the proposed action, these activities would not occur at the same time and there would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the Study Area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to noise from pile driving and drilling also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Generally speaking, NMFS considers a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level of harassment under the MMPA a non-minor response—in other words, not every response qualifies as behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of a higher level, or accrued across a longer duration, have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson
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 sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
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 (Miller
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
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
Behavioral Responses to Icebreaking Noise—Ringed seals on pack ice showed various behaviors when approached by an icebreaking vessel. A majority of seals dove underwater when the ship was within 0.93 km (0.5 nm) while others remained on the ice. However, as icebreaking vessels came closer to the seals, most dove underwater. Ringed seals have also been observed foraging in the wake of an icebreaking vessel (Richardson
Adult ringed seals spend up to 20 percent of the time in subnivean lairs during the winter season (Kelly
Ringed seal mothers have a strong bond with their pups and may physically move their pups from the birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid predation, sometimes risking their lives to defend their pups from potential predators. If a ringed seal mother perceives the proposed acoustic sources as a threat, the network of multiple birth and haulout lairs allows the mother and pup to move to a new lair (Smith and Stirling, 1975; Smith and Hammill, 1981). The acoustic sources from this proposed action are not likely to impede a ringed seal from finding a breathing hole or lair, as captive seals have been found to primarily use vision to locate breathing holes and no effect to ringed seal vision would occur from the acoustic disturbance (Elsner
Stress responses—An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Auditory Masking—Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the receiving marine mammal (Southall
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. 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 determining 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 (
Marine mammals at or near the proposed project site may be exposed to anthropogenic noise which may be a source of masking. Vocalization changes may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise and include increasing the source level, modifying the frequency, increasing the call repetition rate of vocalizations, or ceasing to vocalize in the presence of increased noise (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). For example, in response to loud noise, beluga whales may shift the frequency of their echolocation clicks to prevent masking by anthropogenic noise (Eickmeier and Vallarta, 2023).
Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. Energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, and sound from pile driving would be within the audible range of pinnipeds and cetaceans present in the proposed action area. While icebreaking during the ONR's proposed action may mask some acoustic signals that are relevant to the daily behavior of marine mammals, the short-term duration (up to 8 days) and limited areas affected make it very unlikely that the fitness of individual marine mammals would be impacted.
Potential Effects on Prey—The marine mammal species in the Study Area feed on marine invertebrates and fish. Studies of sound energy effects on invertebrates are few, and primarily identify behavioral responses. It is expected that most marine invertebrates would not sense the frequencies of the acoustic transmissions from the acoustic sources associated with the proposed action. Although acoustic sources used during the proposed action may briefly impact individuals, intermittent exposures to non-impulsive acoustic sources are not expected to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of widespread marine invertebrate populations.
The fish species residing in the study area include those that are closely associated with the deep ocean habitat of the Beaufort Sea. Nearly 250 marine fish species have been described in the Arctic, excluding the larger parts of the sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg
Effects to Physical and Foraging Habitat—Ringed seals haul out on pack ice during the spring and summer to molt (Reeves
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of the negligible impact determinations and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of direct behavioral disturbances and/or TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to active acoustic transmissions and icebreaking. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds
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). Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed.
Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context (
In this case, NMFS is proposing to adopt the ONR's approach to estimating incidental take by Level B harassment from the active acoustic sources for this action, which includes use of dose response functions. The ONR's dose response functions were developed to estimate take from sonar and similar transducers, but are not applicable to icebreaking. Multi-year research efforts have conducted sonar exposure studies for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller
Southall
Odontocete behavioral criteria for non-impulsive sources were updated based on controlled exposure studies for dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) studies where odontocete behavioral responses were reported after exposure to sonar (Miller
The controlled exposure studies included exposing the Navy's trained bottlenose dolphins to mid-frequency sonar while they were in a pen. Mid-frequency sonar was played at six different exposure levels from 125-185 dB re 1 μPa (RMS). The behavioral response function for odontocetes resulting from the studies described above has a 50 percent probability of response at 157 dB re 1 μPa. Additionally, distance cutoffs (20 km for MF cetaceans) were applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses is considered to be unlikely.
The pinniped behavioral threshold was updated based on controlled exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal (
Empirical evidence has not shown responses to non-impulsive acoustic sources that would constitute take beyond a few km from a non-impulsive acoustic source, which is why NMFS and the Navy conservatively set distance cutoffs for pinnipeds and mid-frequency cetaceans (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a). The cutoff distances for fixed sources are different from those for moving sources, as they are treated as individual sources in ONR's modeling given that the distance between them is significantly greater than the range to which environmental effects can occur. Fixed source cutoff distances used were 5 km (2.7 nm) for pinnipeds and 10 km (5.4 nm) for beluga whales (table 5). As some of the on-site drifting sources could come closer together, the drifting source cutoffs applied were 10 km (5.4 nm) for pinnipeds and 20 km (10.8 nm) for beluga whales (table 5). Regardless of the received level at that distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond these cutoff distances. Range to thresholds were calculated for the noise associated with icebreaking in the study area. These all fall within the same cutoff distances as non-impulsive acoustic sources; range to behavioral threshold for both beluga whales and ringed seal were under 5 km (2.7 nm), and range to TTS threshold for both under 15 m (49.2 ft) (table 5).
NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The ONR's proposed action includes the use of non-impulsive (active sonar and icebreaking) sources; however, Level A harassment is not expected as a result of the proposed activities based on modeling, as described below, nor is it proposed to be authorized by NMFS.
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:
The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals likely to be exposed to underwater acoustic transmissions above the previously described threshold criteria during the proposed action. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates obtained from the Kaschner
The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as integral components of the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO). In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and group size information and animats record energy received at their location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process. NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy (sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training event.
NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of criteria;
There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions have been chosen (
• Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum potential sound level at a given location (
• Animats do not move horizontally (but change their position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving or stationary sound sources in the model;
• Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those exposures that may result in PTS;
• Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating potential threshold shift, because there are not sufficient data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures; and
• Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.
Due to these inherent model limitations and simplifications, model-estimated results should be further analyzed, considering such factors as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict acoustic effects on marine mammals, as described below in the
The underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the central Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during different types of ice-cover was characterized in Roth
Most likely, individuals affected by acoustic transmission would move away from the sound source. Ringed seals may be temporarily displaced from their subnivean lairs in the winter, but a pinniped would have to be within 5 km (2.7 nm) of a moored source or within 10 km (5.4 nm) of a drifting source for any behavioral reaction. Any effects experienced by individual pinnipeds are anticipated to be short-term disturbance of normal behavior, or temporary displacement or disruption of animals that may be near elements of the proposed action.
Of historical sightings registered in the Ocean Biodiversity Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP database) (Halpin
The area of influence surrounding each moored source would be 78.5 km
To be conservative, the ONR has assumed that one ringed seal would be exposed to acoustic transmissions above the threshold for Level B harassment, and that each would be exposed each day of the proposed action (365 days total). Unlike the NAEMO modeling approach used to estimate ringed seal takes in previous ARA IHAs, the occurrence method used in this ARA IHA request does not support the differentiation between behavioral or TTS exposures. Therefore, all takes are classified as Level B harassment and not further distinguished. Modeling for all previous years of ARA activities did not result in any estimated Level A harassment. NMFS has no reason to expect that the ARA activities during the effective dates of this IHA would be more likely to result in Level A harassment. Therefore, no Level A harassment is anticipated due to the proposed action.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations. We also describe how the marine mammal occurrence information is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
The beluga whale density numbers utilized for quantitative acoustic modeling are from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). Where available (
Take of all species would occur by Level B harassment only. NAEMO was previously used to produce a qualitative estimate of PTS, TTS, and behavioral exposures for ringed seals. For this proposed action, a new approach that utilizes sighting data from previous surveys conducted within the Study Area was used to estimate Level B harassment associated with non-impulsive acoustic sources (see section 6.4.3 of the IHA application). NAEMO modeling is still used to provide estimated takes of beluga whales associated with non-impulsive acoustic sources, as well as provide take estimations associated with icebreaking for both species. Table 9 shows the total number of requested takes by Level B harassment that NMFS proposes to authorize for both beluga whale stocks and the Arctic ringed seal stock based upon NAEMO modeled results.
Density estimates for beluga whales are equal as estimates were not distinguished by stock (Kaschner, 2004; Kaschner
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. 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)). The 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
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, as well as subsistence uses. 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, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The following measures are proposed for this IHA:
• All vessels operated by or for the Navy must have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times while underway. Watch personnel must employ visual search techniques using binoculars. While underway and while using active acoustic sources/towed in-water devices, at least one person with access to binoculars is required to be on watch at all times.
• Vessel captains and vessel personnel must remain alert at all times, proceed with extreme caution, and operate at a safe speed so that the vessel can take proper and effective action to avoid any collisions with marine mammals.
• During moored and drifting acoustic source deployment and recovery, ONR must implement a mitigation zone of 55 m (180 ft) around the deployed source. Deployment and recovery must cease if a marine mammal is visually deterred within the mitigation zone. Deployment and recovery may recommence if any one of the following conditions are met:
○ The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone;
○ The animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sound source;
○ The mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans.
• Vessels must avoid approaching marine mammals head-on and must maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 457 m (500 yards) around all observed cetaceans and 183 m (200 yards) around all other observed marine mammals, provided it is safe to do so.
• Activities must cease if a marine mammal species for which take was not authorized, or a species for which authorization was granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, is observed approaching or within the mitigation zone (table 10). Activities must not resume until the animal is confirmed to have left the area.
• Vessel captains must maintain at-sea communication with subsistence hunters to avoid conflict of vessel transit with hunting activity.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011). The ICMP has been developed in direct response to Navy permitting requirements established through various environmental compliance efforts. As a framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to those activities on ranges and operating areas for which the Navy is seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. The ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort based on a set of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of regional scientific value and resource availability.
The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the greatest potential for being impacted. ONR's ARA in comparison is a less intensive test with little human activity present in the Arctic. Human presence is limited to the deployment of sources that would take place over several weeks. Additionally, due to the location and nature of the testing, vessels and personnel would not be within the study area for an extended period of time. As such, more extensive monitoring requirements beyond the basic information being collected would not be feasible as it would require additional personnel and equipment to locate seals and a presence in the Arctic during a period of time other then what is planned for source deployment. However, ONR will record all observations of marine mammals, including the marine mammal's species identification, location (latitude/longitude), behavior, and distance from project activities. ONR will also record date and time of sighting. This information is valuable in an area with few recorded observations.
Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Navy's ICMP and the proposed IHA:
• While underway, all vessels must have at least one person trained through the U.S. Navy Marine Species Awareness Training Program on watch during all activities;
• Watch personnel must use standardized data collection forms, whether hard copy or electronic. Watch personnel must distinguish between sightings that occur during transit or during deployment or recovery of acoustic sources. Data must be recorded on all days of activities, even if marine mammals are not sighted;
• At minimum, the following information must be recorded:
○ Vessel name;
○ Watch personnel names and affiliation;
○ Effort type (
○ Environmental conditions (at the beginning of watch stander shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort Sea State (BSS) and any other relevant weather conditions, including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon.
• Upon visual observation of any marine mammal, the following information must be recorded:
○ Date/time of sighting;
○ Identification of animal (
○ Location (latitude/longitude) of sighting;
○ Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
○ 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 (
○ Distance from vessel to animal;
○ Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
○ Platform activity at time of sighting (
○ Weather conditions (
○ During icebreaking, the following information must be recorded:
○ Start and end time of icebreaking; and
○ Ice cover conditions.
• During deployment and recovery of acoustic sources or UUVs, visual observation must begin 30 minutes prior to deployment or recovery and continue through 30 minutes following the source deployment or recovery.
• The ONR must submit its draft report(s) on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of monitoring or 60 calendar days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHA for research activities at the same location, whichever comes first. A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of the draft report, the report shall be considered final.
• All draft and final monitoring reports must be submitted to
• The marine mammal report, at minimum, must include:
○ Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
○ Acoustic source use or icebreaking;
○ Watch stander location(s) during marine mammal monitoring;
○ Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of watch standing shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
○ Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information:
Name of watch stander who sighted the animal(s), the watch stander location, and activity at time of sighting;
Time of sighting;
Identification of the animal(s) (
Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the acoustic source or icebreaking for each sighting;
Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition,
Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone; and
Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (
○ Number of shutdowns during monitoring, if any;
○ Marine mammal sightings (including the marine mammal's location (latitude/longitude));
○ Number of individuals of each species observed during source deployment, operation, and recovery; and
○ Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
• The ONR must submit all watch stander data electronically in a format that can be queried, such as a spreadsheet or database (
• Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
○ In the event that personnel involved in the specified activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the ONR must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS (
○ The report must include the following information:
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.
• Vessel Strike: In the event of a vessel strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities covered by the authorization, the ONR shall report the incident to OPR, NMFS and to the Alaska regional stranding coordinator (877-925-7773) as soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:
○ Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
○ Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
○ 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 measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
○ Environmental conditions (
○ Estimated size and length of 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 immediately preceding the strike;
○ Estimated fate of the animal (
○ To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to beluga whales and ringed seals, 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, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with the proposed ARA, as outlined previously, have the potential to result in Level B harassment of beluga seals and ringed seals in the form of behavioral disturbances. No serious injury, mortality, or Level A harassment are anticipated to result from these described activities. Effects on individual belugas or ringed seals taken by Level B harassment could include alteration of dive behavior and/or foraging behavior, effects to breathing rates, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe behavioral responses are not anticipated due to the localized, intermittent use of active acoustic sources. Exposure duration is likely to be short-term and individuals will, most likely, simply be temporarily displaced by moving away from the acoustic source. Exposures are, therefore, unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for affected individuals or adverse impacts to stocks as a whole.
Arctic ringed seals are listed as threatened under the ESA. The primary concern for Arctic ringed seals is the ongoing and anticipated loss of sea ice and snow cover resulting from climate change, which is expected to pose a significant threat to ringed seals in the future (Muto
A small portion of the Study Area overlaps with ringed seal critical habitat. Although this habitat contains features necessary for ringed seal formation and maintenance of subnivean birth lairs, basking and molting, and foraging, these features are also available throughout the rest of the designated critical habitat area. Any potential limited displacement of ringed seals from the proposed ARA study area would not be expected to interfere with their ability to access necessary habitat features, given the availability of similar necessary habitat features nearby.
The Study Area also overlaps with beluga whale migratory and feeding BIAs. Due to the small amount of overlap between the BIAs and the proposed ARA study area as well as the low intensity and short-term duration of acoustic sources and required mitigation measures, we expect minimal impacts to migrating or feeding belugas. Shutdown zones are expected to avoid the potential for Level A harassment of belugas and ringed seals, and to minimize the severity of any Level B harassment. The requirements of trained dedicated watch personnel and speed restrictions will also reduce the likelihood of any ship strikes to migrating belugas.
In all, the proposed activities are expected to have minimal adverse effects on marine mammal habitat. While the activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities, this would encompass a relatively small area of habitat leaving large areas of existing fish and marine mammal foraging habitat unaffected. As such, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to impact the health or fitness of any marine mammals.
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;
• Impacts would be limited to Level B harassment only;
• Only temporary and relatively low-level behavioral disturbances are expected to result from these proposed activities; and
• Impacts to marine mammal prey or habitat will be minimal and short term.
The anticipated and authorized take is not expected to impact the reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammals, much less rates of recruitment or survival. 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.
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Subsistence hunting is important for many Alaska Native communities. A study of the North Slope villages of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Utqiaġvik identified the primary resources used for subsistence and the locations for harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010), including terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, and marine mammals (bowhead whale, ringed seal,
In addition, ONR has been communicating with the Native communities about the proposed action. The ONR-sponsored chief scientist for AMOS gave a briefing on ONR research planned for 2024-2025 Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) meeting on December 15, 2023 in Anchorage, Alaska. No questions were asked from the commissioners during the brief or in subsequent weeks afterwards. The AEWC consists of representatives from 11 whaling villages (Wainwright, Utqiaġvik, Savoonga, Point Lay, Nuiqut, Kivalina, Kaktovik, Wales, Point Hope, Little Diomede, and Gambell). These briefings have communicated the lack of any effect on subsistence hunting due to the distance of the sources from hunting areas. ONR-supported scientists also attend Arctic Waterways Safety Committee (AWSC) and AEWC meetings on a regular basis to discuss past, present, and future research activities. While no take is anticipated to result during transit, points of contact for at-sea communication will also be established between vessel captains and subsistence hunters to avoid any conflict of ship transit with hunting activity.
Based on the description of the specified activity, distance of the study area from subsistence hunting grounds, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ONR's proposed activities.
The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer reviewed where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Given the factors discussed above, NMFS has also determined that the activity is not likely to affect the availability of any marine mammal species or stock for taking for subsistence uses, and therefore, peer review of the monitoring plan is not warranted for this project.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of ringed seals, which are listed under the ESA. The Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the AKR 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 the ONR for conducting a seventh year of ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas from September 2024 to September 2025, 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 ARA. 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 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS and the Assessment Oversight Panel (AOP) will convene the Management Track Assessment Peer Review Meeting for the purpose of reviewing American plaice, Atlantic halibut, Gulf of Maine haddock, Georges Bank haddock, Pollock, and Witch flounder stocks. The Management Track Assessment Peer Review is a formal scientific peer-review process for evaluating and presenting stock assessment results to managers for fish stocks in the offshore U.S. waters of the Northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by the lead stock assessment analyst and reviewed by an independent panel of stock assessment experts. The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions between the review panel and the scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.
The public portion of the Management Track Assessment Peer Review Meeting will be held from September 16, 2024-September 19, 2024. The meeting is open to the public; however, the `Report Writing' session on Friday, will be closed. The meeting will conclude on September 20, 2024 at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please see
The meeting will be held via Google Meet video call link:
Michele Traver, 508-495-2195;
For further information, please visit the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) website at
The agenda is subject to change; all times are approximate and may be changed at the discretion of the Peer Review Chair.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Michele Traver, via email.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Charter renewal of Federal advisory committee.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC).
Jim Freeman, DoD Advisory Committee Management Officer, 703-692-5952.
The ACANC's charter is being renewed in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the ACANC's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at
The ACANC, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 7723(b) and (c), provides the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”), and the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). The ACANC shall make periodic reports and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army with respect to the administration of ANC, the erection and design of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. All advice and recommendations shall also be forwarded to the DoD Appointing Authority. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2409(E)(ii), the Secretary of the Army shall consult with the ACANC before approving the design of a monument placed in the ANC. The ACANC is composed of no more than 9 members who are prominent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise, specifically bereavement practices and administrative oversight to organizational management, memorial erection and design, and master planning for extending the life of a cemetery. Membership will consist of public and private sector leaders with a diversity of background, experience, and thought in support of the ACANC mission in one or more of the following disciplines: expertise with bereavement practices and administrative oversight, organizational management, veterans' services, memorial erection and design, and master planning for extending the life of a cemetery. Of the potential members, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall nominate one member; the Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission shall nominate one member; and the Secretary of the Army shall nominate the remaining members.
Individual members are appointed according to DoD policy and procedures, and serve a term of service of one-to-four years with annual renewals. One member will be appointed as Chair of the ACANC. No member, unless approved according to DoD policy and procedures, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the ACANC, or serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time.
ACANC members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, are appointed as experts or consultants, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, to serve as special government employee members. ACANC members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a), to serve as regular government employee members.
All members of the ACANC are appointed to provide advice based on their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official ACANC-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements about the ACANC's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the ACANC. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the ACANC, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) requests information in the form of written comments that include feedback on ways to improve the “help text” of the 2025-2026 FAFSA form, as well as for the development of supporting materials including student and contributor tip sheets, counselor guides, or other direct communication tools to ensure applicants and contributors can successfully complete and submit the 2025-2026 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) form. The Department also seeks feedback from financial aid administrators, counselors, and other members of the public on ways the Department can provide additional support to ensure applicants and contributors complete the FAFSA, and institutions of higher education and State grant agencies have support for the processing and packaging of student aid. Based on the suggestions submitted in response to this notice, the Secretary will consider changes to the 2025-2026 FAFSA supporting materials and develop a new Better FAFSA Better Future Roadmap (the Roadmap) that will outline the new tools the Department is making available, such as additional trainings, webinars, counselor guides, and student and contributor tip sheets.
Suggestions and comments must be submitted no later than September 13, 2024 to ensure their consideration.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The Department strongly encourages you to submit any comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a comment in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), the Department strongly encourages you to convert the PDF to “print-to-PDF” format, or to use some other commonly used searchable text format. Please do not submit the PDF in a scanned format. Using a print-to-PDF format allows the Department to electronically search and copy certain portions of your submissions to assist in the 2025-26 FAFSA development process.
Melanie Storey, Director, Policy Implementation and Oversight, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid. Telephone: (202) 377-3608. Email at:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The 2024-2025 FAFSA cycle was the culmination of extraordinary changes to law and the entire FAFSA process. The passage of two bipartisan pieces of legislation—the 2019 Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act and 2020 FAFSA Simplification Act—resulted in the retirement and rebuilding of more than 20 technological systems within the agency, new Federal student aid eligibility formulas, a new data exchange that pulls tax data directly from the Internal Revenue Service into the FAFSA, and many other new requirements and innovations.
The expansive scope, development process, and timeline of simplifying the 2024-25 FAFSA has been challenging for students, families, counselors, institutions, States, and organizations that support them. To minimize disruptions and ensure a smooth experience for students, families, and institutions, the Department will not be making major changes to the 2025-26 FAFSA form, including to the question flow, data collected to make eligibility determinations, and the ISIR layout.
The Department recognizes that for every student who qualifies for Federal financial aid to have the opportunity to successfully complete the FAFSA, our partners will need effective tools and resources for both student and contributor outreach, ISIR processing, and packaging of Federal student aid. While the Department will not make substantive changes to the structure of the form in 2025-26, the Department will continue to develop tools and resources for students and families, and those that support them, including counselors and financial aid administrators, to ensure a successful 2025-26 FAFSA cycle.
With the support of institutions of higher education, K-12 schools and local educational agencies, State agencies, and college access and community organizations, more than 13 million students have submitted a 2024-25 FAFSA to date. Partner feedback and support have also contributed to improvements that have reduced error rates since the launch of the form. In our continued work with our partners, through this Request for Information (RFI), the Department solicits specific feedback on ways to improve supporting materials, including help text on the form, the creation of student and contributor tip sheets and tools, and other direct communication to ensure students and their contributors can successfully complete the 2025-26 FAFSA. The Department also seeks feedback from financial aid administrators, K-12 and postsecondary counselors, State and local educational agencies, and others on ways the Department can provide additional support to them in their work.
In conjunction with the feedback from this RFI and a series of listening sessions that the Department is conducting, the Department is developing a new Better FAFSA Better Future Roadmap. The Roadmap will outline new tools the Department is making available such as additional trainings, webinars, counselor guides, and student and contributor tip sheets.
The Department particularly seeks answers to the following questions related to FAFSA completion and aid processing:
1. What informational resources or tools from the Department would most help students, families, and those who work with them better understand and navigate the FAFSA form?
2. What is the most effective way for the Department to communicate with students and contributors (
3. What specific questions on the FAFSA form need additional help or guidance (
4. What specific populations, if any, would benefit most from additional support materials, such as tip sheets? What are the best ways to communicate this additional support to these populations?
1. What types of student or contributor support initiatives have you or your institution, school or school district, agency, or organization found to be most effective in supporting students and contributors to complete the FAFSA? What types of informational resources could the Department create to increase the impact of these activities?
2. What informational resources (
3. What specific resources or tools would support counselors (K-12 and higher education), college access organizations, and other student support professionals to help increase rates of FAFSA completion?
The Department encourages comments from institutions of higher education, schools and school districts (including school and district leaders), State educational agencies, State higher education agencies, school counselors and college advisors, college access organizations, student support professionals, students and their families, stakeholders within the education community, and other members of the public.
This is a request for information only. This RFI is not a request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to make significant changes or adjustments to the FAFSA form. This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. We are not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI. The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI becomes the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, September 10, 2024; 1:30-9 p.m. PDT.
Wednesday, September 11, 2024; 9 a.m.-3:15 p.m. PDT.
The Centennial Hotel, Skyline Ballroom, 303 West North River Drive, Spokane, Washington 99201. This hybrid meeting will be in-person at The Centennial Hotel and virtually. To receive the virtual access information and call-in number, please contact the Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Lindsay Somers, at the telephone number or email listed below at least five days prior to the meeting.
Lindsay Somers, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Office of Communications, Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, Richland, WA 99354; Telephone: (509) 376-0923; or Email:
Office of Acquisition Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of public availability of FY 2022 service contract inventory.
In accordance with Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is publishing this notice to advise the public on the availability of the FY 2022 Government-Wide Service Contract Inventory, FY 2022 DOE Service Contract Inventory Analysis Plan and FY 2021 DOE Service Contract Inventory Analysis. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $150,000 that DOE completed in FY 2022. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The FY 2022 government-wide service contract inventory can be found at
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Lance Nyman in the Strategic Programs Division at (240) 474-7960 or
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 31, 2024, by Berta Schreiber, Director, Office of Acquisition Management, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
The license for the Niangua Hydroelectric Project No. 2561 was issued for a period ending June 1, 2024.
Section 15(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2561 is issued to Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative for a period effective June 2, 2024, through June 1, 2025, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before June 1, 2025, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative is authorized to continue operation of the Niangua Hydroelectric Project under the terms and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a subsequent license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
Take notice that on August 1, 2024, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) requested that the Commission grant an extension of time until October 16, 2024, to complete construction and place into service the 2023 Lincoln-Freeman New Wells Project (Project) located in Clare County, Michigan. On June 16, 2023, the Commission issued a Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization, which established a 60-day comment period, ending on August 15, 2023, to file protests. No protests were filed during the comment period, and accordingly, the project was self-implemented on August 16, 2023, and by Rule should have been completed within one year.
To date, ANR has completed all drilling activities on Lincoln Wells 164HD, 165HD, and 166HD. However, unexpected construction issues arose on Lincoln Wells 165HD and 166HD, resulting in a delay in the previously anticipated Project in-service date of July 2024. The remaining work includes completing the final tie-ins from the new pipeline laterals to the new wells.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link 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 on July 29, 2024, Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville LLC (Eagle LNG) requested that the Commission grant an extension of time, until September 19, 2029, to construct and place into service its Jacksonville Project (Project) located in Jacksonville, Florida as authorized by the Commission in Docket No. CP17-41-000.
Eagle LNG states that the Jacksonville Project has been impacted substantially by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began only six months after the issuance of the Order. The COVID-19 pandemic created an extremely challenging environment for the negotiation and execution of contracts. Those impediments continued for some time after the effects of the pandemic had begun to subside in 2022.
Eagle LNG affirms that inflation and supply chain issues brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the total installed cost of the Jacksonville Project from what was forecast when Eagle LNG first submitted the Jacksonville Project application to the Commission. Since many construction companies are focused on larger scale projects, and those willing to take on a more modestly sized project are finding it virtually impossible to hire skilled tradesmen, Eagle LNG has found it difficult to secure the services of a contractor that will devote time to the Jacksonville Project. Eagle LNG anticipates that the construction of the Jacksonville Project will take 24 to 36 months, with construction commencing following a final investment decision to be made. In order to make that final investment decision, Eagle LNG and its investors must be able to conclude that the project's FERC authorization provides enough time to complete construction of the Jacksonville Project. This is the reason why Eagle LNG requests that the FERC construction completion deadline be extended to September 19, 2029.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Eagle LNG's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link 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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collections, FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest Purchasers) in OMB Control No. 1902-0114, which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Comments on the collections of information are due September 13, 2024.
You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC24-19-000) on FERC-566 by one of the following methods:
Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
○
○
Doug Reimel may be reached by email at
FERC-566 implements FPA requirements that each public utility annually publishes a list of the 20 purchasers which purchased the largest annual amounts of electric energy sold by such public utility during any of the three previous calendar years. The public disclosure of this information provides the information necessary to determine whether an interlocked position is with any of the 20 largest purchasers of electric energy.
On July 24, 2024, the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from the Santa Clara Valley Water District in conjunction with the above captioned project on June 28, 2024. We hereby notify the Water Board of the following:
If the Water Board fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the 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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collections, FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of holding Company Status), and FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status) in OMB control no. 1902-0218, which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Comments on the collection of information are due September 13, 2024.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC24-18-000) by either of the following methods:
Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
○
○
FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at:
Doug Reimel may be reached by email at
Pursuant to section 366.4 of the Commission's rules and regulations, persons who meet the definition of a holding company shall provide the Commission notification of holding company status. The FERC-65 is a one-time informational filing. The FERC-65 must be submitted within 30 days of becoming a holding company.
While noting the previously outlined requirements of the FERC-65, the Commission has allowed for an exemption from the requirement of providing the Commission with a FERC-65 if the books, accounts, memoranda, and other records of any person are not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company; or if any class of transactions is not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company. Persons seeking this exemption file the FERC-65A, which must include a form of notice suitable for publication in the
If an entity meets the requirements in 18 CFR 366.3(c), they may file a FERC-65B waiver notification pursuant to the procedures outlined in 18 CFR 366.4. Specifically, the Commission waives the requirement of providing it with a FERC-65 for any holding company with respect to one or more of the following: (1) single-state holding company systems; (2) holding companies that own generating facilities that total 100 MW or less in size and are used fundamentally for their own load or for sales to affiliated end-users; or (3) investors in independent transmission-only companies. Filings may be made in hardcopy or electronically through the Commission's website.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to § 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
The Halifax Project operates in a run-of-river mode with a continuous minimum flow of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs), or inflow, whichever is less. There is minimal to no available usable storage behind the dam and if river flow is less than 135 cfs, all water is spilled over the dam. The project is typically operated remotely in automatic control mode. Banister Hydro is not proposing any new project facilities or changes to the operation of the project.
From 2019 to 2023, average annual generation at the Halifax Project was 2,403 megawatt-hours.
o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online 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
p.
Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
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 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 Rule 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5 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 on July 25, 2024, Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover), 8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75225, filed an application under section 7c of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its Rover-Wick Meter Downsize Project (Project). Rover proposes to replace the meter skid at its Wick Meter Station located in Tyler County, West Virginia, resulting in a decrease in maximum receipt capacity through the Wick Meter Station to 100 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscf/d), from the current maximum receipt capacity of 300 MMscf/d. The Project is designed to provide more accurate measurement through the meter skid. Rover estimates the cost of the Project to be $503,709, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Blair Lichtenwalter, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Rover Pipeline LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by phone at (713) 989-2605, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 29, 2024. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
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
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before August 29, 2024.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP24-504-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP24-504-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances,
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP24-504-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: Blair Lichtenwalter, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Rover Pipeline LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, or at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of intent to renew the charter for the Disability Advisory Committee.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) hereby announces that the charter of the Disability Advisory Committee (hereinafter Committee) will be renewed for a two-year period pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L St. NE, Washington, DC 20554.
You may contact Joshua Mendelsohn, Designated Federal Officer, Federal Communications Commission, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 559-7304 or
After consultation with the General Services Administration, the Commission intends to renew the charter on or before December 13, 2024, providing the Committee with authorization to operate for two years. The purpose of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission on the full range of disability access topics specified by the Commission and to facilitate the participation of consumers with disabilities in proceedings before the Commission. In addition, this Committee is intended to provide an effective means for stakeholders with interests in this area, including consumers with disabilities, to exchange ideas, which will in turn enhance the Commission's ability to effectively address disability access issues.
The Committee will be organized under, and will operate in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. ch. 10). The Committee will be solely advisory in nature. Consistent with FACA and its requirements, each meeting of the Committee will be open to the public unless otherwise noticed. A notice of each meeting will be published in the
During the Committee's next term, it is anticipated that the Committee will meet in Washington, DC and/or virtually via video conference, at the discretion of the Commission, approximately three (3) times a year, with additional meetings scheduled as needed. The first meeting date and agenda topics will be described in a Public Notice issued and published in
In addition, as needed, subcommittees will be established to facilitate the Committee's work between meetings of the full Committee. Meetings of the Committee will be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 15, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before September 13, 2024.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this document announces a new computer matching program the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with the South Carolina Department of Social Services. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of Lifeline, and the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), both of which are administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC. More information about these programs is provided in the
Written comments are due on or before September 13, 2024. This computer matching program will commence on September 13, 2024, and will conclude 18 months after the effective date.
Send comments to Elliot S. Tarloff, FCC, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, or to
Elliot S. Tarloff at 202-418-0886 or
The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit, or various Tribal-specific Federal assistance programs.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 2129-36 (2020), Congress created the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, and directed use of the National Verifier to determine eligibility based on various criteria, including the
In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, (81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016) (
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directs the FCC to leverage the National Verifier to verify applicants' eligibility for ACP. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of Lifeline and ACP applicants and subscribers by determining whether they receive SNAP benefits administered by the South Carolina Department of Social Services.
South Carolina Department of Social Services (source agency); Federal Communications Commission (recipient agency) and Universal Service Administrative Company.
The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's ACP is 47 U.S.C. 1752(a)-(b). The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's Lifeline program is 47 U.S.C. 254(a)-(c), (j).
The purpose of this new matching agreement is to verify the eligibility of applicants and subscribers to Lifeline, as well as to ACP and other Federal programs that use qualification for Lifeline as an eligibility criterion. This new agreement will permit eligibility verification for the Lifeline program and ACP by checking an applicant's/subscriber's participation in SNAP in South Carolina. Under FCC rules, consumers receiving these benefits qualify for Lifeline discounts and also for ACP benefits.
The categories of individuals whose information is involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals who have applied for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; or are individuals who have received Lifeline and/or ACP benefits.
The categories of records involved in the matching program include the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security Number, date of birth, and last name. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the South Carolina Department of Social Services which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a qualifying assistance program: SNAP administered by the South Carolina Department of Social Services.
The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline, which was published in the
The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the ACP system of records, FCC/WCB-3, Affordable Connectivity Program, which was published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before September 13, 2024.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
The Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules ensure that consumers with hearing loss have the same access to the newest and most technologically advanced handset models as consumers without hearing loss. These rules were adopted by the Commission in response to the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, which was enacted in 1988 and is codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 610. See Public Law 100-394, sec. 3, 102 Stat. 976, 976 (1988). In order to ensure handset manufacturer and service provider compliance with the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act and the Commission's regulations implementing the Act, the Commission has adopted handset labeling and disclosure requirements, website posting and record retention requirements, and handset manufacturer and mobile wireless service provider reporting requirements. See 47 CFR 20.19(f), (h), (i). These requirements are the subject of this information collection submission, and these regulations ensure that consumers are given the information that they need to make informed purchasing decisions and that handset manufacturers and service providers meet hearing aid-compatible handset model deployment requirements that the Commission has adopted.
The Commission is not proposing changes to the handset labeling and disclosure requirements, nor to the website posting and record retention requirements. These requirements will remain unchanged after OMB approval of this information collection submission.
With respect to FCC Form 855, the Commission is proposing to add an information icon to two of the form's questions for clarification purposes only. The two questions appear in the certification part of the form and the Commission will place a validation stop after each question to ensure that filers provide answers to the questions before proceeding to complete the form. The two information icons will be placed in the following locations and will provide as follows:
• One information icon will be placed at the end of the question requesting filers to provide the percentage of hearing-aid compatible handset models that they provided for the reporting period. The information icon will provide the following clarification: “If your company claims a HAC handset model compliance percentage of less than 85%, then you must indicate above which de minimis exception your company is claiming.” The addition of this information icon will not change what the question is asking, but will provide filers with guidance on how to complete the form.
• The second information icon will be placed at the end of the question requesting filers who maintain publicly accessible websites to provide the website address where required hearing aid compatibility information is posted. The information icon will provide the following clarification: “If your company did not have a publicly-accessible website for the reporting period, then type the following statement into the box: `For the reporting period, [name of company] did not operate a publicly-accessible website.' ” The addition of this information icon will not change what the question is asking, but will provide filers with guidance on how to complete the form.
In addition to these minor, non-substantive changes to FCC Form 855, the Commission is proposing to modify the form's instructions to provide the following clarifications:
• The filing window for the form opens on the first business day in January each year and closes on January 31, unless January 31 is not a business day. In this case, the filing window closes on the first business day after January 31. This change conforms the form's instructions concerning the filing window with the information on the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility website concerning the filing window.
• The instruction which states that service providers should provide the percentage of handset models that they offered for the reporting period that were hearing aid-compatible will be modified by changing the word “should” to “must,” and “must” will be bolded for emphasis. This instruction will also reference the information icon discussed above that will be added to this question for clarification purposes only.
• The instruction which states that service providers must post on their publicly accessible websites certain hearing aid compatibility information required by the Commission's rules will be modified by bolding the existing word “must” for emphasis. This instruction will also reference the information icon discussed above that will be added to this question for clarification purposes only.
• The instruction which states that service providers who are not in full compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules must provide an attachment explaining their non-compliance will be modified by bolding the existing word “must” for emphasis.
The Commission is not seeking approval of any changes to FCC Form 655 used by handset manufacturers to show compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements. The Commission is proposing to modify the form's instructions to provide the following clarifications:
• The filing window for the form opens on the first business day in July each year and closes on July 31, unless July 31 is not a business day. In this case, the filing window closes on the first business day after July 31. This change conforms the form's instructions concerning the filing window with the information on the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility website concerning the filing window.
• The instruction which states that handset manufacturers must post on their publicly accessible websites certain hearing aid compatibility information required by the Commission's rules will be modified by bolding the existing word “must” for emphasis.
These minor, non-substantive modifications the Commission is proposing to the existing information collection will provide clarity and promote efficiency. These changes will not affect the burden estimate or compliance cost that OMB has previously approved for this information collection. After the 60-day comment period expires, the Commission will submit the information collection to OMB to obtain a full three-year clearance.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 15, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
5 p.m. on Friday, August 9, 2024.
The meeting was held via videoconference.
Closed.
The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the Corporation's corporate activities. In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Director Jonathan McKernan, by the unanimous vote of Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Vice Chairman Travis Hill, Director Jonathan McKernan, Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(6), of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(6)).
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice of meeting; charter renewal.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announces a meeting of the FHFA Advisory Committee on Affordable, Equitable, and Sustainable Housing (Committee). FHFA also announces the renewal of the charter of the Committee.
Tuesday, September 10, 2024, 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. eastern standard time (EST) and Wednesday, September 11, 2024, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Constitution Center, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Paul Theruviparampil, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Housing & Community Investment, Division of Housing Mission and Goals, (202) 649-3982,
Pursuant to FACA (5 U.S.C. chapter 10), a meeting of the Committee will be held on September 10 and 11, 2024. The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. The purpose of the meeting is to convene FHFA's first Committee meeting to discuss and advise on affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing.
Members of the public who wish to attend should contact
Pursuant to the FACA (5 U.S.C. chapter 10), FHFA announces the renewal of the charter of the Committee.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise FHFA in the exercise of its oversight functions regarding affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing, including but not limited to, affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing needs, barriers to access, barriers to long-term sustainability, and any regulatory, guidance, or policy changes that may be necessary or beneficial to expand such housing. The Committee will focus on FHFA's regulated entities—Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks—and their respective roles in providing a reliable source of liquidity and funding to support housing finance and community investment in the single-family and multifamily housing markets.
The duties of the Committee are solely advisory and extend only to its submission of advice and recommendations to FHFA, with supporting information and analysis, which are non-binding on FHFA.
No determinations of fact or policy are be made by the Committee. The Committee has no decision-making role, and will have no access to non-public FHFA information, including confidential supervisory or other confidential information.
The FHFA Director will continue to appoint the members of the Committee as their terms expire. To achieve a fairly balanced membership, FHFA will continue to seek members representative of diverse communities, points of view, institution asset sizes, and geographical locations, with expertise in affordable, sustainable, or equitable housing in single-family and multifamily housing. The Committee will include members with expertise, applicable to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Banks, in the areas related to the duties and authorities of the Committee, such as: (1) fair lending, fair housing, or civil rights; (2) single-family lending, servicing, development, mortgages, or capital markets; (3) multifamily lending, servicing, development, mortgages, capital markets, or investments (
The Committee consists of approximately 20 members, serving two-year terms. Members serve at the sole discretion of the Director.
The Committee will meet regularly, as required to carry out its functions. It is estimated that the Committee will meet at least twice per year. Generally, Committee meetings will be open to the public.
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 received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
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 August 29, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requests Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to modify and extend the approval of the ACF Behavioral Interventions to Advance
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
In addition to extending approval, this approval would also allow OPRE to conduct tests in the newly added program area of child care. The design and testing of BIAS-NG interventions is rapid and, to the extent possible, iterative. Each specific intervention is designed in consultation with agency leaders and launched as quickly as possible. To maximize the likelihood that the intervention produces measurable, significant, and positive effects on outcomes of interest, rapid cycle evaluation techniques will be employed in which proximate outcomes will be measured to allow the research team to more quickly iterate and adjust the intervention design, informing subsequent tests. Due to the rapid and iterative nature of this work, OPRE sought and received approval for an overarching generic clearance to conduct this research. Following standard OMB requirements for generic clearances, once instruments subject to PRA are tailored to a specific site and the site's intervention, OPRE submits an individual generic information collection request under this umbrella clearance. Each request includes the individual instrument(s), a justification specific to the individual information collection, a description of the proposed intervention, and any supplementary documents. Each specific information collection includes up to two submissions—one submission for the formative stage research and another submission for any further data collection requiring burden during the testing phase. The type of information to be collected and the uses of the information is described in the supporting statements, found here:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is inviting interested persons to submit comments concerning abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of eight drug substances. These comments will be considered in preparing a response from the United States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse liability and diversion of these drugs. WHO will use this information to consider whether to recommend that certain international restrictions be placed on these drug substances. This notice requesting comments is required by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Either electronic or written comments must be submitted by August 23, 2024.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Edward (Greg) Hawkins, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Controlled Substance Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5110, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0727,
The United States is a party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (Psychotropic Convention). Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention provides that if a party to the convention or WHO has information about a substance, which in its opinion
Paragraph (d)(2)(A) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(d)(2)(A)) (Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) provides that when WHO notifies the United States under Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention that it has information that may justify adding a drug or other substances to one of the schedules of the Psychotropic Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or deleting it from the schedules, the Secretary of State must transmit the notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary of HHS). The Secretary of HHS must then publish the notice in the
The Secretary of HHS received the following notice from WHO (nonrelevant text removed):
The World Health Organization (WHO) presents its compliments to Member States and Associate Members and would like to inform that all recommendations made by the 46th WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD), held in October 2023, were accepted by the 67th UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
WHO further has the pleasure of announcing that the 47th Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) will meet from 14 to 18 October 2024 in Geneva, Switzerland. Given that WHO Expert Committee meetings are of a closed nature, this circular letter serves to notify Member States of the agenda of the 47th ECDD, which are in the Annex I file, attached for reference.
WHO is mandated by the 1961 and 1971 International Drug Control Conventions to make recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on the need for and level of international control of psychoactive substances. To fulfil this mandate, WHO convenes the ECDD to advise on appropriate international drug control measures in view of a substance's ability to lead to public health harms as a result of their psychoactive properties, as well as its therapeutic applications.
Although the meetings are of a closed nature, Member States, Associate Members, individuals, and representatives of public and private institutions and civil society who wish to present information to the Expert Committee on issues related to the meeting agenda are invited to attend a virtual information meeting (public consultation) on 14 October 2024. The purpose of the information meeting is to afford the Expert Committee the opportunity to receive presentations and to question representatives of interested parties concerning data that have been provided about substances on the ECDD agenda. Registration information will be made available on the ECDD website in due course: Forty-seventh Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (who.int).
As in the past and in line with the publication “Guidance on the WHO review of psychoactive substances for international control” (EB126/2010/REC1, Annex 6), Member States and Associate Members can also contribute to the ECDD review process by providing up to date and accurate information concerning the substances under review in advance of the meeting. For this purpose, and as per previous practice, a questionnaire will be sent to Member States and Associate Members to gather country information on the legitimate use, harmful use, status of national control and potential impact of international control for each substance under evaluation.
The World Health Organization takes this opportunity to renew to Member States and Associate Members the assurance of its highest consideration.
FDA has verified the website addresses contained in the WHO notice as of the date this document publishes in the
Hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) is a semi-synthetic cannabinoid. Several synthetic mechanisms for HHC have been published, which involve hydrogenating tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). In vitro receptor binding and activity studies indicate that HHC has higher affinity and agonist activity at the cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptor compared to that of the CB2 receptor. These data suggest that HHC produces effects similar to CB1 agonists, such as sedation, analgesia, mood changes, altered memory, psychosis, and panic. According to the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) database, HHC was first detected in the United States in 2022 with a total of 54 law enforcement seizures. There are no commercial uses or approved medical uses for HHC in the United States, and it is not controlled under the CSA.
3-Hydroxy-phencyclidine (3-OH-PCP) is a dissociative hallucinogen of the arylcyclohexylamine class that has a structure similar to that of phencyclidine (PCP). In vitro binding and activity data indicate that 3-OH-PCP functions as a high affinity antagonist of the
Carisoprodol is a sedative-hypnotic that is used as a centrally acting muscle relaxant and hypnotic. Carisoprodol is a prodrug that is metabolized in the liver to form meprobamate, which functions similarly to benzodiazepines and barbiturates. It was approved for medical use in the United States in 1959 as a muscle relaxant and is typically prescribed in combination with analgesics to treat muscle pain. FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System reported a total of 6,426 adverse events involving carisoprodol since 1969, and 18 of those being reported as drug abuse (data retrieved July 2024). Only 5 of the 18 were reported as abuse of carisoprodol alone. According to the NFLIS database, there were 405 law enforcement seizures of carisoprodol in 2022 alone. Scientific studies indicated that carisoprodol demonstrated abuse potential similar to that of benzodiazepines, resulting in it being controlled in schedule IV under the CSA on January 11, 2012 (76 FR 77330).
As required by paragraph (d)(2)(A) of the CSA, FDA, on behalf of HHS, invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the eight drug substances identified in this document. Any comments received by the deadline will be considered by HHS when it prepares a scientific and medical evaluation for drug substances that is responsive to the WHO Questionnaire for these drug substances. HHS will forward such evaluation of these drug substances to WHO, for WHO's consideration in deciding whether to recommend international control/decontrol of any of these drug substances. Such control could limit, among other things, the manufacture and distribution (import/export) of these drug substances and could impose certain recordkeeping requirements on them.
Although FDA is, through this notice, requesting comments from interested persons, which will be considered by HHS when it prepares an evaluation of these drug substances, HHS will not now make any recommendations to WHO regarding whether any of these drugs should be subjected to international controls. Instead, HHS will defer such consideration until WHO has made official recommendations to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which are expected to be made in late 2024. Any HHS position regarding international control of these drug substances will be preceded by another
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that a virtual meeting is scheduled to be held for the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB). The meeting will be available to the public through the live stream on
The meeting is scheduled to be held on August 29, 2024, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. ET (times are tentative and subject to change). The confirmed times and agenda items for the meeting will be posted on the website for the PACCARB at
The virtual meeting can be accessed through a live webcast on the day of the meeting at
Jomana Musmar, M.S., Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852. Phone: 202-746-1512; Email:
The Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB), established by Executive Order 13676, is continued by section 505 of Public Law 116-22, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 (PAHPAIA). Activities and duties of the PACCARB are governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. app.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of Federal advisory committees.
The PACCARB advises and provides information and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) regarding programs and policies intended to reduce or combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria that may present a public health threat and improve capabilities to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, or treat such resistance. The PACCARB functions solely for advisory purposes.
Such advice, information, and recommendations may be related to improving: the effectiveness of antibiotics; research and advanced research on, and the development of, improved and innovative methods for combating or reducing antibiotic resistance, including new treatments, rapid point-of-care diagnostics, alternatives to antibiotics, including alternatives to animal antibiotics, and antimicrobial stewardship activities; surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, including publicly available and up-to-date information on resistance to antibiotics; education for health care providers and the public with respect to up-to-date information on antibiotic resistance and ways to reduce or combat such resistance to antibiotics related to humans and animals; methods to prevent or reduce the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; including stewardship programs; and coordination with respect to international efforts in order to inform and advance the United States capabilities to combat antibiotic resistance.
The focus of the August 29, 2024, virtual meeting will be for the PACCARB to deliberate and vote on transmittal of the draft resolution letter from the Immediate Action Subcommittee to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The meeting agenda will be posted on the PACCARB website at
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (CTGR) to include the county of Clackamas in the State of Oregon. The current PRCDA for the CTGR includes the Oregon counties of Washington, Polk, Yamhill, Marion, Multnomah, and Tillamook. The sole purpose of this expansion is to authorize additional CTGR members and beneficiaries to receive purchased/referred care (PRC) services.
This expansion is effective as of the publication date of this notice.
This notice can be found at
The IHS provides services under regulations in effect as of September 15, 1987, and republished at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A-C. Subpart C defines a Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA), now referred to as a PRCDA, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the PRCDA. Residence within a PRCDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for
The regulations at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after Consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may from time to time, redesignate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. 42 CFR 136.22(b). The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any redesignation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC.
Additionally, the regulations require that any redesignation of a PRCDA be made in accordance with the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, the IHS published a proposed notice of redesignation and requested public comments on August 7, 2023 (88 FR 52185). The IHS received one comment in response to the proposed notice of redesignation; the comment requested that the IHS engage in additional Tribal Consultation regarding the proposed PRCDA expansion.
Redesignation and expansion of the CTGR's PRCDA to include Clackamas County, Oregon, would create overlap with two Tribes whose existing PRCDAs also include Clackamas County: the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.
The IHS initiated Consultation with each of these Tribes in 2021, and continued Consultation, as requested, through 2024. The primary concern raised during Tribal Consultation was whether the proposed expansion of the CTGR's PRCDA to include Clackamas County, Oregon, exceeded Congressional intent as expressed in the Grande Ronde Restoration Act, Public Law 98-165, Nov. 22, 1983. Although the IHS acknowledges this concern, the IHS has, under the PRC regulations, preserved flexibility to redesignate areas as appropriate for inclusion in or exclusion from PRC service delivery.
In support of this expansion, the IHS makes the following findings:
1. By expanding the PRCDA to include Clackamas County, the CTGR's eligible population will increase by an estimated 179 Tribal members residing in Clackamas County.
2. The Tribal members within the expanded PRCDA are socially and economically affiliated with the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon. A letter from the CTGR, dated May 19, 2021, noted that the CTGR members residing in Clackamas County are active members of the community and routinely participate in Tribal elections, General Council meetings, and Tribal events.
3. Clackamas County in the State of Oregon is “on or near” the reservation, as it maintains a common boundary with the current PRCDA consisting of the counties of Washington, Polk, Yamhill, Marion, Multnomah, and Tillamook in the State of Oregon.
4. The CTGR administers the PRC program and intends to use its existing Federal allocation for PRC, along with Tribal resources, to provide services to the expanded population. The CTGR acknowledged that no additional financial resources will be allocated by the IHS to provide services to CTGR members residing in Clackamas County in the State of Oregon.
An updated listing of the PRCDAs for all federally recognized Tribes may be accessed via a link on the IHS PRCDA Expansion website (
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council. The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 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 Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 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.
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:
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Place National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Ln, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
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 a 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 materials, 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 meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of revision and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning information collected for the selling and servicing of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies by FEMA's direct servicing agent, NFIP Direct.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 13, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
The NFIP is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA) (Pub. L. 90-448) and expanded by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L.
FEMA proposes minor revisions to the existing paper forms completed by licensed insurance agents and the addition of a new electronic form that property owners can complete online.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of new collection and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a new information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning FEMA's sharing of information that includes personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive personally identifiable information (SPII) of disaster survivors.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 13, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579, as amended) (5 U.S.C. 552a) establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance,
The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347) (5 U.S.C. chapter 37; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3606) improves the management and promotion of electronic government services and processes by establishing a Federal Chief Information Officer within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and by establishing a framework of measures that require using internet-based information technology to improve citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-288, as amended), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (“Stafford Act”) provides broad authority to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to carry out its mission of helping people before, during, and after disasters. FEMA shares information, to include PII and SPII, to meet the Agency's mission to: “reduce the loss of life and property and protect our institutions from all hazards by leading and supporting the nation in a comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.” As part of responding to requests to share information, FEMA engages in an interactive process with entities to determine the validity and scope of their data sharing request.
FEMA is creating this generic information collection to document the instruments FEMA uses to outline contractual sharing of protected information with external partners in disaster and non-disaster environments. This generic information collection will ensure all OMB-approved expiration dates are aligned across FEMA's Privacy Division and will also allow FEMA to update individual instruments as sub-collections under this generic collection instead of revising entire information collections and analyze individual instruments for burden reduction.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.
Notice of fiscal year (FY) 2025 Fair Market Rents (FMRs).
Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA), as amended by the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA), requires the Secretary to publish FMRs not less than annually, adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year. This notice describes the methods used to calculate the FY 2025 FMRs and lists the procedures for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) to request reevaluations of their FMRs as required by HOTMA.
HUD invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the FMRs and to request reevaluation of the FY 2025 FMRs. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Public Comments and FMR Reevaluations” section. There are two methods for submitting public comments or reevaluation requests:
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments or reevaluation requests, comments or requests must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.
For technical information on the methodology used to develop FMRs or a listing of all FMRs, please call the HUD USER information line at 800-245-2691 or access the information on the HUD USER website at
Questions related to the use of FMRs or voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local HUD program staff or the Office of Public and Indian Housing Customer Service Center at
Section 8 of the USHA (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes housing assistance to aid lower-income families in renting safe and decent housing. Housing assistance payments are limited by FMRs established by HUD for different geographic areas. In the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the FMR is the basis for determining the “payment standard amount” used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for an assisted family. See 24 CFR 982.503. HUD also uses the FMRs to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, initial rents for housing assistance payment contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program, rent ceilings for rental units in both the HOME Investment Partnerships program and the Emergency Solution Grants program, calculation of maximum award amounts for Continuum of Care recipients and the maximum amount of rent a recipient may pay for property leased with Continuum of Care funds, and calculation of flat rents in Public Housing units. The FMR is also used to determine the Performance Based Contract Administration Fee in Multifamily Housing. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that a tenant would need to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. HUD's FMR calculations represent HUD's best effort to estimate the 40th percentile gross rent paid by recent movers into standard quality units in each FMR area. In addition, all rents subsidized under the HCV program must meet reasonable rent standards.
HUD's methodology for calculation FMRs is described in Section III. HUD first adopted this methodology for the calculation of FY 2024 FMRs, and it is unchanged for FY 2025.
Section 8(c)(1) of the USHA,
This section provides a brief overview of how HUD computes the FY 2025 FMRs. For complete information on how HUD derives each area's FMRs, see the online documentation at
The FY 2025 FMRs are based on the updated metropolitan area definitions published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on September 14, 2018 and first incorporated by the Census Bureau into the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data, and the corresponding FY 2022 FMRs. On July 21, 2023, OMB published Bulletin No. 23-01 which contains revisions to metropolitan area definitions. However, the Census Bureau has not yet incorporated these revisions into the data available to HUD, and therefore HUD is not using these new definitions for FY 2025.
Pursuant to section 107(a) of HOTMA (Pub. L. 114-201) for FY 2025, HUD is adding Westchester County, NY to the New York, NY HUD Metropolitan Fair Market Rent Area. Westchester County, NY will remain a separate median family income and income limit area pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1437(b)(2)(D).
For FY 2025 FMRs, HUD uses the U.S. Census Bureau's 5-year ACS data
For areas in which the 5-year ACS data for two-bedroom, standard quality gross rents do not pass the statistical reliability tests (
Following the assignment of the standard quality two-bedroom rent described above, HUD applies a recent-mover factor to these rents. HUD calculates the recent-mover factor as the change between the 5-year 2018-2022 standard quality two-bedroom gross rent and the 1-year 2022 recent mover gross rent for the recent mover factor area. HUD does not allow recent-mover factors to lower the standard quality base rent; therefore, if the 5-year standard quality rent is larger than the comparable 1-year recent mover rent, HUD sets the recent-mover factor to 1. When the recent-mover factor is greater than one and calculated for the same geographic area as the base rent, HUD is, in effect, replacing the base rent with the recent-mover rent for that area.
In determining the recent mover factor, HUD first considers the rents of households who moved into their unit only in the current ACS year. For ACS 2022, this means that the maximum length of time for a household to have lived in its current unit and still be considered a recent mover under this definition would be 11 months. HUD applies the same two statistical reliability checks to each ACS recent mover estimate as it does for the base rent estimate. First, the estimate must be supported by at least 100 sample cases from the ACS. Second, the estimate must have a margin of error that is smaller than half the estimate itself. HUD first considers the estimate for two-bedroom units, then for units of all bedroom sizes. For areas without an ACS estimate meeting these criteria, HUD next checks the estimate tabulated from two-year recent movers. If the local two-year recent mover estimates are not reliable, HUD considers the estimates for increasingly larger areas of geography.
HUD calculates base rents for the insular areas using data collected during the 2010 decennial census of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands beginning with the FY 2016 FMRs.
HUD does not use ACS data to establish the base rent or recent-mover factor in cases where it has locally collected survey data which are more recent than the 2022 ACS. For larger metropolitan areas that have valid ACS one-year recent-mover data, survey data may not be any older than the mid-point of the calendar year for the ACS one-year data. Since the ACS one-year data used for the FY 2025 FMRs is from 2022, larger areas with valid one-year recent mover data may not use other survey data collected before June 30, 2022 for the FY 2025 FMRs. Areas without statistically reliable 1-year ACS data may continue to use local survey data until the mid-point of the 5-year ACS data is more recent than the local survey. For FY 2025 FMRs, the following are Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), HUD Metro FMR Areas, or non-metropolitan counties that have FMRs based on local ad hoc surveys:
(1) HUD uses survey data from 2019 to calculate the FMRs for Guam.
(2) HUD uses survey data from 2021 to calculate the FMRs for Iron County, UT; Knox County, ME; Lincoln County, ME; Transylvania County, NC; and Waldo County, ME.
(3) HUD uses survey data from 2022 to calculate the FMRs for Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HUD Metro FMR Area; Hawaii County, HI; Hood River County, OR; Salinas, CA MSA; Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area; and Wasco County, OR.
(4) HUD uses survey data from 2023 to calculate the FMRs for San Benito County, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA MSA; and Urban Honolulu, HI MSA.
The ACS recent mover rent estimates as described above produce a rent value that is “as of” 2022. To account for inflation, HUD adjusts this value using an inflation factor that captures rent growth from 2022 to 2023. HUD uses a local measure of private rent inflation for markets that are covered by at least three of the six available sources of private rent data. HUD combines this local measure of rent inflation with either the local metropolitan area CPI rent of primary residence for the 23 areas where such data exist, or the regional CPI rent in areas without a local index.
HUD uses both private data and the CPI in an attempt to fully and accurately measure recent mover rent inflation. Research has shown that private data often provide a timelier measure of recent mover rent inflation than the CPI, which is constructed by measuring the rents of both in-place and new tenants. However, the CPI provides other advantages as a measure of rent inflation, such as consisting of a representative sample of all housing units, measuring rent in the same units
The private measures of rent used by HUD are the ApartmentList Rent Estimate, CoStar Group average effective rent, CoreLogic, Inc., single-family combined 3-bedroom median rent, Moody's Analytics REIS average market rent, RealPage average effective rent per unit, and Zillow Observed Rent Index. In calculating a measure of inflation from these data, HUD first takes the annual average of each statistic, then its year-to-year change. HUD then takes the mean of the changes from all available sources for each area.
Next, HUD takes an average of this private-sector measure of rent inflation with rent inflation as captured by the CPI for the area, where the private-sector measure is weighted at approximately 75 percent and the CPI rent inflation measure is weighted at approximately 25 percent. HUD has determined and updated these weights by comparing the national average of the private rent changes and changes in CPI rent of primary residence to changes in the national average of recent mover rents from the ACS from 2018 through 2022. HUD weights the private data averages and overall CPI rent of primary residence in such a way as to minimize the root mean squared error between the resulting average and the ACS recent mover rents. For future FMRs, HUD will continue update the weights by adding the most recent years of ACS recent mover rents, private rent data, and CPI rent of primary residence to the analysis.
For areas without at least three of the six private rent data sources available, HUD uses a regional average of private rent inflation factors alongside the regional CPI rent of primary residence using the nationally derived weights described above. HUD constructs the regional average by taking the rental unit weighted average of the change in rents of each area in a region that does have private rent data coverage. This ensures that smaller areas which are not covered by the private sources directly still have current rental market conditions taken into account in the calculation of the rent inflation factor for such areas.
Finally, HUD averages the result of this step with the year-to-year change in the CPI housing fuels and utilities index for the area in order to make the resulting inflation measure reflective of gross rents. The results of this step are gross rent estimates that are “as of” 2023.
Following the application of the appropriate gross rent inflation factor, HUD trends the gross rent estimate from 2023 to FY 2025 using a trend factor which is based on local or regional forecasts of CPI gross rent data. HUD derived a trend factor for each Class A CPI area and Class B/C CPI region using time series models based on national inputs (National Input Model or NIM), local inputs (Local Input Model or LIM), and historical values of the predicted series (Pure Time Series—PTS). HUD chose the actual model used for each CPI area's trend factor based on which model generates the lowest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) statistic and applied the trend factors to the corresponding FMR areas. HUD established the type of model for each forecast (NIM, LIM, or PTS) for the FY 2020 FMRs. HUD had previously stated it would reassess the model selections during the calculation of the FY 2025 FMRs. However, due to the high degree of volatility that occurred in rental markets from 2020-2023, HUD believes that evaluating model performance during this period will not result in the best long term model selection. More details on the trend factor forecasts are available in the June 5, 2019
HUD uses two-bedroom units for its primary calculation of FMR estimates. This is generally the most common size of rental unit and, therefore, the most reliable to survey and analyze. After estimating two-bedroom FMRs, HUD calculates bedroom ratios for each FMR area, which relate the prices of smaller and larger units to the cost of two-bedroom units. The bedroom ratios HUD uses in the calculation of FY 2025 FMRs are calculated from three five-year ACS data series (2016-2020, 2017-2021, and 2018-2022). HUD only uses estimates with a margin of error ratio of less than 50 percent. If an area does not have reliable estimates in at least two of the previous three ACS releases, HUD uses the bedroom ratios for the area's larger parent geography.
To ensure an adequate distributional fit in these bedroom ratio calculations for individual FMR areas, HUD establishes bedroom interval ranges which set upper and lower limits for bedroom ratios nationwide, based on an analysis of the range of such intervals for all areas with large enough samples to permit accurate bedroom ratio determinations. In the calculation of FY 2025 FMR estimates, HUD sets the bedroom interval ranges as follows: efficiency FMRs are constrained to fall between 0.69 and 0.87 of the two-bedroom FMR; one-bedroom FMRs must be between 0.76 and 0.90 of the two-bedroom FMR; three-bedroom FMRs (prior to the adjustments described below) must be between 1.11 and 1.29 of the two-bedroom FMR; and four-bedroom FMRs (again, prior to adjustment) must be between 1.23 and 1.56 of the two-bedroom FMR. Given that these interval ranges partially overlap across unit bedroom counts, HUD further adjusts bedroom ratios for a given FMR area, if necessary, to ensure that higher bedroom-count units have higher rents than lower bedroom-count units within that area.
HUD further adjusts the rents for three-bedroom and larger units to reflect HUD's policy to set higher rents for these units.
HUD derives FMRs for units with more than four bedrooms by adding 15 percent to the four-bedroom FMR for each extra bedroom. For example, the FMR for a five-bedroom unit is 1.15 times the four-bedroom FMR, and the FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 times the four-bedroom FMR. Similarly, HUD derives FMRs for single-room occupancy units by subtracting 25 percent from the zero-bedroom FMR (
All FMRs are subject to a minimum rent based on state or national non-metropolitan area median rent. HUD calculates a population-weighted median two-bedroom FMR across all non-metropolitan counties or county-equivalents of each state, which, for the purposes of FMRs, is the state minimum
HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 888.113 include a limit on the amount that FMRs may annually decrease. The current year's FMRs resulting from the application of the bedroom ratios, as discussed in section (E) above, may be no less than 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs for units with the same number of bedrooms. Accordingly, if the current year's FMRs are less than 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs as calculated by the above methodology, HUD sets the current year's FMRs equal to 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs. For areas where HUD has required the use of Small Area FMRs in the administration of their voucher programs since 2018, the FY 2025 Small Area FMRs may be no less than 90 percent of the FY 2024 Small Area FMRs. For newly designated mandatory Small Area FMR areas under the October 23, 2023 notice “Small Area Fair Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program—Metropolitan Areas Subject to Small Area Fair Market Rents”, the FY 2025 Small Area FMRs may be no less than 90 percent of the greater of the FY 2024 metropolitan area wide FMRs or the applicable FY 2024 Small Area FMR, as Small Area FMRs were not yet in effect for these areas in FY 2024. For all other metropolitan areas, the FY 2025 Small Area FMRs may be no less than 90 percent of the greater of the FY 2024 metropolitan area wide FMRs or the applicable FY 2024 Small Area FMR. The following table demonstrates these scenarios:
PHAs operating in areas where the calculated FMR is lower than the published FMR (
HUD lists Small Area FMRs for all areas in the Small Area FMR Schedule. PHAs operating in areas where the use of Small Area FMRs is not mandated should notify HUD of their use of Small Area FMRs in the operation of their Housing Choice Voucher program.
On October 25, 2023, HUD published the notice “Small Area Fair Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program—Metropolitan Areas Subject to Small Area Fair Market Rents”, which requires 41 additional metropolitan areas to use Small Area Fair Market Rents in the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher program beginning in FY 2025.
Newly for FY 2025, HUD has calculated SAFMRs for both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The methodology for calculating SAFMRs is as follows:
First, HUD calculates Small Area FMRs directly from the standard quality gross rents provided to HUD by the Census Bureau for ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) when such data are statistically reliable. The ZCTA two-bedroom equivalent 40th percentile gross rent is analogous to the standard quality base rents set for metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan counties.
For ZCTAs without usable gross rent data by bedroom count, HUD calculates Small Area FMRs using the rent ratio method. To calculate Small Area FMRs using a rent ratio, HUD divides the median gross rent across all bedrooms for the ZCTA by the similar median gross rent for the metropolitan or non-metropolitan area of the ZCTA. If a ZCTA does not have reliable rent data at the all-bedroom level, HUD will then check to see if the ZCTA borders other ZCTAs that themselves have reliable rent data. If at least half of a ZCTA's “neighbors” have such data, HUD will use the weighted average of those estimates as the basis for the Small Area FMR rather than a county proxy, where the weight is the length of the shared boundary between the ZCTA and its neighbor. In small areas where the neighboring ZCTA median gross rents are not statistically reliable, HUD substitutes the median gross rent for the county containing the ZIP code in the numerator of the rent ratio calculation. HUD multiplies this rent ratio by the current two-bedroom FMR for the metropolitan or non-metropolitan area containing the small area to generate the current year two-bedroom FMR for the small area.
HUD continues to use a rolling average of ACS data in calculating the Small Area FMR rent ratios. HUD believes coupling the most current data with previous year's data minimizes excessive year-to-year variability in Small Area FMR rent ratios due to sampling variance. Therefore, for FY 2025 Small Area FMRs, HUD has updated the rent ratios to use an average of the rent ratios calculated from the 2016-2020, 2017-2021, and 2018-2022 5-year ACS estimates.
HUD limits each two-bedroom Small Area FMR to be no more than 150 percent of the two-bedroom FMR for the metropolitan or non-metropolitan area where the ZIP code is located.
HUD accepts public comments on the methods HUD uses to calculate FY 2025 FMRs and requests for reevaluation of FMRs for specific areas for 30 days after the publication of this notice. HUD lacks the resources to conduct local surveys of rents to address comments filed regarding the FMR levels for specific areas. PHAs may continue to fund such surveys independently, as specified below, using ongoing administrative fees or their administrative fee reserve if they so choose. HUD continually strives to calculate FMRs that meet the statutory requirement of using “the most recent available data” while also serving as an effective program parameter.
42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(1)(B) includes the following: “The Secretary shall establish a procedure for public housing agencies and other interested parties to comment on such fair market rentals and to request, within a time specified by the Secretary, reevaluation of the fair market rentals in a jurisdiction before such rentals become effective.”
PHAs or other parties interested in requesting HUD's reevaluation of their area's FY 2025 FMRs, as provided for under section 8(c)(1)(B) of USHA, must follow the following procedures:
(1) By the end of the 30-day comment period, PHAs or other parties must submit reevaluation requests through
(2) The requestor(s) must supply HUD with data more recent than the 2022 ACS data used in the calculation of the FY 2025 FMRs. HUD requires data on gross rents paid in the FMR area for occupied standard quality rental housing units. Occupied recent mover units (defined as those who moved in the past 24 months, although a shorter definition may also be used at the requestor's discretion) provide the best data. The data delivered must be sufficient for HUD to calculate a 40th percentile two-bedroom gross rent. Should this type of data not be available, requestors may gather this information using the survey guidance available at
(3) Areas where valid reevaluation requests are submitted
(4) PHAs or other parties must supply data for reevaluations to HUD no later than Friday, January 10, 2025. All survey responses of rental units gathered as part of the survey efforts should be delivered to HUD via email.
HUD will use the data delivered by January 10, 2025 to reevaluate the FMRs and following the reevaluation, HUD will post revised FMRs in April of 2025 with an accompanying
For small metropolitan areas without one-year ACS data and non-metropolitan counties, HUD has developed a method of using mail surveys that is discussed on the FMR web page:
Other survey methods are acceptable in providing data to support reevaluation requests if the survey method can provide statistically reliable, unbiased estimates of gross rents paid throughout the entire FMR area. In general, recommendations for FMR changes and supporting data must reflect the rent levels that exist within the entire FMR area and should be statistically reliable.
PHAs in non-metropolitan areas are required to get 100 eligible survey responses which means they should have at least 5,000 rental units, taking in to account survey non-response rates and the fact that some units will fail to qualify. PHAs may conduct surveys of groups of non-metropolitan counties to increase the number of rental units that are surveyed, but HUD must approve all county-grouped surveys in advance. HUD cautions that the resulting FMRs may not be identical for the counties surveyed; each individual FMR area will have a separate FMR based on the relationship of rents in that area to the combined rents in the cluster of FMR areas. In addition, HUD advises that in counties where FMRs are based on the combined rents in the cluster of FMR areas, HUD will not revise their FMRs unless the grouped survey results show a revised FMR statistically different from the combined rent level.
Survey samples should preferably be randomly drawn from a complete list of rental units for the FMR area. If this is not feasible, the selected sample must be drawn to be statistically representative of the entire rental housing stock of the FMR area. Surveys must include units at all rent levels and be representative by structure type (including single-family, duplex, and other small rental properties), age of housing unit, and geographic location. The current 5-year ACS data should be used as a means of verifying if a sample is representative of the FMR area's rental housing stock. HUD staff are available to work with PHAs in areas requesting re-evaluations to provide the minimum number of survey cases required to ensure that data submitted for re-evaluation represent a statistically valid sample. In cases where a submitted sample is not representative, HUD may attempt to weight the sample cases prior to calculating 40th percentile rent estimates.
A PHA or contractor that cannot obtain the recommended number of sample responses after reasonable efforts should consult with HUD before abandoning its survey; in such situations, HUD may find it appropriate to relax normal sample size requirements, but in no case will fewer than 100 eligible cases be considered.
This notice involves the establishment of FMR schedules, which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent Schedules, which will not be codified in 24 CFR part 888, are available at
a. The Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan FMR Area Schedule lists FMRs alphabetically by state, by metropolitan area and by non-metropolitan county within each state and are available at
b. The schedule lists the constituent counties (and New England towns and cities) included in each metropolitan FMR area immediately following the listings of the FMR dollar amounts. All constituent parts of a metropolitan FMR area that are in more than one state can be identified by consulting the listings for each applicable state.
c. The schedule lists two non-metropolitan counties alphabetically on each line of the non-metropolitan county listings.
d. Similarly, the schedule lists the New England towns and cities included in a non-metropolitan county immediately following the county name.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to revise an existing collection of information.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 15, 2024.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by one of the following methods (please reference “1018-0102” in the subject line of your comments):
•
•
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We issue special use permits for a specific period as determined by the type and location of the management activity or visitor service provided. These permits authorize activities such as:
• Agricultural activities (haying and grazing, 50 CFR 29.1 and 50 CFR 29.2).
• Beneficial management tools that we use to provide the best habitat possible on some refuges (50 CFR 30.11, 50 CFR 31.14, 50 CFR 31.16, and 50 CFR 36.41).
• Special events, group visits, and other one-time events (50 CFR 25.41, 50 CFR 25.61, 50 CFR 26.36, and 50 CFR 36.41).
• Recreational visitor service operations (50 CFR 25.41, 50 CFR 25.61, and 50 CFR 36.41).
• Guiding for fishing, hunting, wildlife education, and interpretation (50 CFR 25.41 and 50 CFR 36.41).
• Commercial filming (43 CFR 5, 50 CFR 27.71) and other commercial activities (50 CFR 29.1 and 50 CFR 36.41).
• Building and using cabins to support subsistence or commercial activities (in Alaska) (50 CFR 26.35 and 50 CFR 36.41).
• Research, inventory and monitoring, and other noncommercial activities (50 CFR 26.36 and 50 CFR 36.41).
We currently use three types of special use permits to collect applicant information:
• Form 3-1383-G (General Activities Special Use Permit Application);
• Form 3-1383-C (Commercial Activities Special Use Permit Application); and
• Form 3-1383-R (Research and Monitoring Special Use Permit Application).
The information we collect helps ensure that:
• applicants are aware of the types of information that may be needed for permit issuance;
• requested activities are appropriate and compatible with the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established and the system's mission; and
• the applicant is eligible or is the most qualified applicant to receive the special use permit.
We may collect the necessary information in a non-form format (through discussions in person or over the phone, over the internet, by email, or by letter). In some instances, respondents will be able to provide information verbally. Often, a simple email or letter describing the activity will suffice. For activities that might have a large impact on refuge resources (
We issue permits for a specific period as determined by the type and location of the use or service provided. We use these permits to ensure that the applicant is aware of the requirements of the permit and the permit holder's legal rights. Refuge-specific special conditions may be required for the permit. We identify conditions as an addendum to the permit. Most of the special conditions pertain to how a permitted activity may be conducted and do not require the collection of information. However, some special conditions, such as activity reports, before and after site photographs, or data sharing, would qualify as an information collection, and we have included the associated burden below.
We also use FWS Form 3-1384, “Bid Sheet—National Wildlife Refuge System,” to streamline collection of the necessary pre-award information from applicants during bidding processes to conduct economic uses on Service lands, such as grazing livestock, harvesting hay and stock feed, or removing timber (50 CFR 29.21). This form simplifies the pre-award selection/bidding process for bidders and for refuge staff by enabling them to understand what information the refuge needs in order to select bids for economic use, and, therefore, reduces the time and burden for the public and Service staff in the pre-award selection bidding process. This form is customizable to the individual economic use being awarded. We will use the Commercial Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-C) as the actual award document that will outline the terms and conditions of the economic use on Service lands.
With this submission, we propose to add an additional form, Form 3-1383-EZ, General Activities Special Use Permit Simplified Application, which is a simplified version of 3-1383-G, General Activities Special Use Permit Application. The intent of this form is to provide a less intimidating and less intensive application for individuals wishing to engage in common, non-economic activities such as recreational berry picking or boat mooring. We expect this optional “EZ” form will reduce public burden, because, filling out form 3-1383-G, applicants will often consider even questions that are not relevant to them in order to determine whether a response is warranted. Our staff will have the option to offer this form after an initial request is received if the majority of questions on the full 1383-G form are expected to be left blank. Form 3-1383-EZ asks no questions that do not already appear on form 3-1383-G.
We are making alterations to the options available to select on question 13a in Form 3-1383-C, Commercial Activities Special Use Permit Application. Some of the existing options are rarely selected and certain types of activity are often entered as “Other.” We are adding some of these common activities in an effort to streamline completion of the form and collection of the activity type.
Specifically, the 3-1383-C form includes an option for mineral lease that is rarely used. We propose to strike that option and add an option for food and beverage vendors such as food trucks. We propose to change “Recreation Events” to “Events” to make it more broadly applicable. We also propose to remove “Cabins” and add “Fishing/Frogging” to cover these types of commercial use.
On form 3-1383-C, we also propose to modify the wording of question 11 to clarify the requested information. The present wording often leads to an answer which provides only a portion of the timing information that we require. The new question is worded, “Describe the specific dates, times, and frequency of activities. Provide an occupancy timeline showing how the activity is expected to proceed.”
No substantive changes are being made to forms 3-1383-G (General Activities Special Use Permit Application), 3-1383-R (Research and Monitoring Special Use Permit Application), or 3-3-1384 (Bid Sheet—National Wildlife Refuge System); however, we plan to make minor updates to the forms' layout to improve readability and functionality. In some cases, selection boxes come after an option and in other cases the boxes come before. We are updating the forms to be more consistent.
The public may request a copy of any form contained in this information collection by sending a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer (see
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Notice of teleconference meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is hereby giving notice that the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will meet as noted below.
The teleconference meetings will be held on the fourth Friday of every month, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. eastern time. If a monthly SESAC meeting is canceled, an email will be sent to registered participants and posted on the SESAC's web page at least three (3) days prior to the SESAC meeting.
Dr. Gavin Hayes, USGS, by email at
The teleconference meetings will be open to the public. The SESAC will review the current activities of the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) and discuss future priorities. Agenda topics will include EHP updates; administration priorities and interactions; budget opportunities; balance of activities supported by the EHP; external grants; the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; National Seismic Hazards Model; the Advanced National Seismic System; ShakeAlert; reports from SESAC subcommittees and preparation for a report to the USGS Director. Final agendas will be emailed to registered participants and posted on the SESAC's web page at least three (3) days prior to the SESAC meeting.
Members of the public wishing to participate in the teleconference meetings should contact Dr. Gavin Hayes by email at
Time will be allowed at the public meeting for any individual or organization wishing to make formal oral comments. Depending on the number of people who wish to speak and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited.
Written comments for the SESAC may be sent electronically in advance of the scheduled meeting to Dr. Gavin Hayes by email at
Detailed minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection within 90 days of the meeting.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Addendum to Tribal-State Compact for Control of Class III Blackjack on the White Earth Band of Chippewa Reservation in Minnesota for Class III Card Games.
The compact takes effect on August 14, 2024.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240,
Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This Public Land Order (PLO) extends the duration of the withdrawal created by PLO No. 7613, which would otherwise expire on August 17, 2024, for an additional 20-year period. PLO No. 7613 withdrew 40 acres of public lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a period of 20 years, for the United States Air Force to protect a runway safe zone at Nellis Air Force Base located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
This PLO takes effect on August 14, 2024.
Eric Benavides, Realty Specialist, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, at (702) 515-5144, email:
The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires this extension in order to protect a runway safe zone at Nellis Air Force Base. The lands withdrawn by PLO No. 7613 on August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51320) and serialized as N-74668 (NVNV106080782) are located wholly within Nellis Air Force Base, a secured military installation, at the northern end of an active runway; public access to these lands has been restricted since the 1950s.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, PLO No. 7613, which withdrew 40 acres of public lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for the United States Air Force to protect a runway safe zone at Nellis Air Force Base, is hereby extended for an additional period of 20 years.
2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of land under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of their mineral
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this Order, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of an environmental assessment (EA) and its finding that possible wind energy-related leasing, right-of-way and right of use issuance, site assessment, and site characterization activities on the U.S. Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore Oregon (the Proposed Action) will not significantly impact the human environment. The EA will inform BOEM's decision whether to issue wind energy leases on the OCS offshore the U.S. Pacific, Oregon.
The final EA and associated information are available on BOEM's website at:
Lisa Gilbane, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Camarillo, California Office, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102, Camarillo, CA 93010, (805) 384-6387 or
The final EA analyzes the potential impacts from the Proposed Action, which involves BOEM issuing up to two commercial wind energy leases in the Oregon Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) and granting associated rights-of-way (ROWs) and rights-of-use and easement (RUEs) offshore the State of Oregon. A BOEM-issued lease provides lessees the exclusive right to submit site assessment and construction and operations plans to BOEM for possible approval. The EA considers the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences associated with site characterization activities (geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys) and site assessment activities (including the installation and operation of meteorological buoys) which are the types of activities that foreseeably follow BOEM's issuance of the leases, ROWs, and RUEs. BOEM prepared an EA for this proposed action to inform its planning and decision-making (40 CFR 1501.5(b)).
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of HydraFacial LLC f/k/a Edge Systems LLC on August 8, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain hydrodermabrasion systems and components thereof II. The complaint names as respondents: Luvo Medical Technologies Inc. of Canada; Clarion Medical Technologies, Inc. of Canada; Healthcare Markets, Inc. d/b/a Powered by MRP of Park City, UT; Medical Purchasing Resource, LLC of Little Elm, TX; Bio-Infusions USA Inc. of Seminole, FL; MIRAmedtech UG of Germany; eMIRAmed USA, LLC of Irvine, CA; and MIRAmedtech SP. Z.O.O. of Poland. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3766”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
August 8, 2024.
Calvin Chang (202-205-3062), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On May 30, 2024, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (89 FR 53444, June 26, 2024). Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued a memorandum tolling certain statutory and regulatory deadlines by a total of seven days (Memorandum to the Record, Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, July 22, 2024). The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with Commerce's new schedule.
The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows. The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 7, 2024, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing prehearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on October 7, 2024; if a brief contains business proprietary information, a nonbusiness proprietary version is due the following business day. The prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on October 18, 2024, if deemed necessary. Parties shall file and serve written
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
On May 23, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Robert Rowen M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certification of Registration No. AR9231919 at the registered address of 2200 County Center Dr., Ste. C, Santa Rosa, CA 95403.
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective September 1, 2022, the Medical Board of California suspended Registrant's California medical license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's California medical license has since been revoked.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to California statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” Cal. Health & Safety Code section 11010
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. AR9231919 issued to Robert Rowen, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Robert Rowen, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Robert Rowen, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective September 13, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 8, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On July 12, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Irene Kimura, M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 3, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BK4376112 at the registered address of 1017 W Broadway Ave., Moses Lake, WA 98837.
The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on or about November 9, 2021, the State of Washington Department of Health Washington Medical Commission issued an “Ex Parte Order of Summary Action—Restriction” that restricted Registrant from prescribing controlled substances. RFAAX 3, at 2. According to Washington's online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's Washington medical license is revoked.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Washington statute, “[a] practitioner may dispense or deliver a controlled substance to or for an individual or animal only for medical treatment or authorized research in the ordinary course of that practitioner's profession.” Wash. Rev. Code section 69.50.308(j) (2024). Further, a “prescription” means “an order for controlled substances issued by a practitioner duly authorized by law or rule in the state of Washington to prescribe controlled substances within the scope of his or her professional practice for a legitimate medical purpose.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense or prescribe a controlled substance in Washington. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Washington, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BK4376112 issued to Irene Kimura, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Irene Kimura, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Irene Kimura, M.D., for additional registration in Washington. This Order is effective September 13, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 8, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On August 8, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Thomas Fausset O.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certification of Registration No. MF5263481 at the registered address of 237 N Western Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90004.
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective April 22, 2023, the California State Board of Optometry revoked Registrant's California optometry license. RFAAX 2, at 2. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's California optometry license remains revoked.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining
According to California statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” Cal. Health & Safety Code section 11010 (West 2024). Further, a “practitioner” means a person “licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] state.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice optometry in California. As discussed above, an optometrist must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice optometry in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. MF5263481 issued to Thomas Fausset, O.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Thomas Fausset, O.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Thomas Fausset, O.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective September 13, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 8, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On July 12, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Michael L. Brodie, M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FB0279150 at the registered address of 2851 Geer Road, Suite B, Turlock, CA 95382.
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective March 2, 2023, Registrant surrendered his California medical license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's California medical license remains surrendered.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding
According to California statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” Cal. Health & Safety Code section 11010 (West 2024). Further, a “practitioner” means a person “licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] state.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0279150 issued to Michael Brodie, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Michael Brodie, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Michael Brodie, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective September 13, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 8, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ).
30-Day notice.
The DOJ, FBI, CJIS Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until September 13, 2024.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Brian A. Cain, Management and Program Analyst, FBI, CJIS, Criminal History Information and Policy Unit, BTC-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306; phone: 304-625-5590 or email
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an Information Clearance Request (ICR) cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until September 13, 2024.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Karen Rolley, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 2242, Washington, DC 20530-0001; telephone: 202-256-6278, email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Statement of Expenditures and Financial Adjustments of Federal Funds for Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees and Ex-Servicemembers Report.
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by October 15, 2024.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Cindy Le by telephone at (202) 693-2829 (this is not toll-free numbers), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, by email:
Contact Cynthia Greene by telephone at 202-693-2724 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Public Law 97-362, Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1982, amended the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) law (5 U.S.C. 8509), and Public Law 96-499, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, amended the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) law (5 U.S.C. 8501,
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for UL LLC, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces the final decision to add one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on August 14, 2024.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of UL LLC, (UL) as a NRTL. UL's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
UL submitted an application, dated July 26, 2022 (OSHA-2009-0025-0062) to expand the NRTL scope of recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing UL's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the UL application, go to
OSHA staff examined UL's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standard, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed in this notice. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant UL's expanded scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of UL's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standard listed below in Table 1.
In this notice, OSHA also announces the final decision to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2 below lists the standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and will add it to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standard listed above as an American National Standard. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 01-00-004, Chapter 2, Section VIII), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, UL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. UL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. UL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. UL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on UL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of UL as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above. Additionally, OSHA will add one standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020)), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 4 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or videoconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from David Travis, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10.
National Intelligence University (NIU), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors.
ODNI is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the NIU Board of Visitors (BoV) will take place. This meeting is closed to the public.
Tuesday, 24 September, 2024 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Bethesda, MD.
National Intelligence University, 4600 Sangamore Road, Bethesda, MD 20816.
Ms. Patricia “Patty” Larsen, Designated Federal Officer, (301) 243-2118 (Voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. The meeting includes the discussion of classified information and classified materials regarding intelligence education issues, internal personnel rules and practices of NIU, and pre-decisional strategic planning matters; and the Director of National Intelligence, or her designee, in consultation with the ODNI Office of General Counsel, has determined the meeting will be closed to the public under the exemptions set forth in 5
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This Notice will be published in the
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15Ga-2 and Form ABS-15G (17 CFR 249.1400) is used for reports of information required under Rule 15Ga-1 and Rule 15Ga-2 (17 CFR 240.15Ga-1) (17 CFR 240.15Ga-2) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Exchange Act Rule 15Ga-1 requires asset-backed securitizers to provide disclosure regarding fulfilled an unfulfilled repurchase requests with respect to asset-backed securities. The purpose of the information collected on Form ABS-15G is to implement the disclosure requirements of Section 943 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide information regarding the use of representations and warranties in the asset-backed securities markets. Rule 15Ga-1 had a one-time reporting requirement that expired on February 14, 2012. We estimate that approximately 2,007 securitizers will file Form ABS-15G annually at estimated (19.307 hours) burden hours per response. In addition, we estimate that 75% of the 19.307 hours per response (14.48 hours) is carried internally by the securitizers for a total annual reporting burden of 29,061 hours (14.48 hours per response × 2,007 responses).
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this 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) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by October 15, 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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17g-7 (17 CFR 240.17g-7) requires each nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSROs”) to publish certain items, including a form containing specified information, when taking a rating action with respect to a credit rating
Based on Commission staff's experience, it is estimated that the total annual hour burden to comply with Rule 17g-7 will be 641,673 hours. The Commission further estimates that this annual hour burden will result in a total annual cost of $238,688,856, reflecting the cost of preparing the form required to be published by Rule 17g-7 and standardizing and tailoring certain required disclosures, and the cost of maintaining a database of rating histories to comply with Rule 17g-7.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On January 25, 2024, the Proposal was published for comment in the
On July 19, 2024, the Commission designated a longer time for Commission action on the Proposal.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 971.2NYP to clarify the definition of CUBE BBO. 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 modify Rule 971.2NYP to clarify the definition of CUBE BBO.
In October 2023, the Exchange completed its transition to its Pillar trading technology platform (“Pillar”).
The Complex CUBE Auction is a paired auction, with a price improvement mechanism, for Electronic Complex Orders. The Rule sets forth the definitions applicable to the Auction as well as the requirements for initiating an Auction. In particular, the Rule specifies that, to initiate an Auction, “the net price of a Complex CUBE Order to buy (sell) must be equal to or higher (lower) than the CUBE BB (BO).”
Per the Rule, the CUBE BBO refers to the CUBE BB and the CUBE BO and the CUBE BBO is comprised of higher of the Complex BBO
The CUBE BB for a Complex CUBE Order to buy is comprised of the higher of: the Complex BB or the Complex BB plus one cent ($0.01) if there is a Customer Complex Order on the Complex BB; or the DBB or the DBB plus one cent ($0.01) if there is displayed Customer interest on the Exchange BBO and the DBB is calculated using the Exchange BBO. The CUBE BO for a Complex CUBE Order to sell is comprised of the lower of: the
Thus, to initiate an Auction, a Complex CUBE Order must be priced at least equal to the best priced interest on the Exchange, unless the best-priced interest represents Customer interest, in which case such interest must be price improved. In instances where the DBB (DBO) represents the best-priced interest on the Exchange, the rule text specifies that the DBO (DBB) must be improved by one cent ($0.01) “if there is displayed Customer interest on the Exchange BBO” and the DBB (DBO) “is calculated using the Exchange BBO.”
The Exchange believes that, while accurate, the Rule could be more transparent regarding what interest on the DBBO (
To initiate the Auction, the price of the cCUBE @4.32 is adjusted to @4.29 (to be on the CUBE BBO).
During Auction, only one RFR Response is received:
The allocation of the cCUBE Order at the conclusion of Auction, is as follows:
As shown in this example, because there is displayed Customer interest at the Exchange BB, which is used to calculate the DBO for the strategy (
The Exchange believes this proposed rule change would add clarity and transparency to Exchange rules making them easier to navigate and comprehend to the benefit of investors.
For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and would protect investors and the public interest because it would elucidate what interest on the DBBO (
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 proposed rule is not designed to impact competition but is instead designed to improve the clarity (and thus enhance the accuracy) of the Rule by making more explicit the pricing requirements to initiate a Complex CUBE Auction. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes would impact intra-market competition as the proposed rule changes would be applicable to all similarly-situated ATP Holders that trade on the Exchange. To the extent that this improved clarity encourages ATP Holders to utilize the Auction, all market participants stand to benefit from additional liquidity being directed to the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar functionality. To the extent that the proposed clarification leads to an increase in Exchange volume, this increase should allow the Exchange to better compete against other options markets that already offer similar price improvement mechanisms and for this reason the proposal does not create an undue burden on intermarket competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.
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 (“Act”)
On March 25, 2024, the Proposal was published for comment in the
On July 19, 2024, the Commission designated a longer time for Commission action on the Proposal.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 1-K (17 CFR 239.91) is used to file annual reports by Tier 2 issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this 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) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by October 15, 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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17g-5(a)(3) and (e) (17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3) and (e)) contain collection of information requirements. Specifically, Rule 17g-5(a)(3) prohibits a person within a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”) from having a conflict of interest relating to the issuance or maintenance of a credit rating for a security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as part of any asset-backed securities transaction that was paid for by the issuer, sponsor, or underwriter of the security or money market instrument unless certain information and representations relating to the security are disclosed or furnished.
Currently, there are 6 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs in the issuer of asset-backed securities category of credit ratings, and it is estimated based on recent issuance data that there are approximately 1,480 new asset-backed securities transactions per year that implicate Rule 17g-5(a)(3). Based on Commission staff's experience, it is estimated that the total annual hour burden to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) will be 61,899 hours. The Commission further estimates that this annual hour burden will result in a total annual cost of $14,126,168. This cost is attributable to costs that may be incurred by NRSROs and arrangers of asset-backed securities posting information on a password-protected website, as required by Rule 17g-5, and preparing and procuring representations to determine whether an exemption under the rule applies, as well as costs incurred by NRSROs preparing certifications required under the rule to gain access to websites maintained by other NRSROs or arrangers of asset-backed securities.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICE CDS Clearing: Back-Testing Framework (“Back-Testing Framework”). These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the “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 revising the Back-Testing Framework, which describes ICC's back-testing approach and procedures and includes guidelines for remediating poor back-testing results. The proposed amendments enhance how credit default swap index options that expire in-the-money—within the margin period of risk, are treated for profit or loss purposes in back-testing and other clarifications. ICC believes that such revisions 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 make such changes effective following Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
ICC proposes to enhance Subsection 2.4. of the Back-Testing Framework by adding a detailed description on how in-the-money (“ITM”) expiring credit default swap (“CDS”) index option (“Index Swaption”) positions, within the margin period of risk (“MPOR”),
Also, ICC proposes the addition of Table 5, `Minimum 5-Day P/L Detail for Expiring Options Positions' to Subsection 2.4. Table 5 provides an illustrative example of the computation of MTM and unrealized P/L for back-testing purposes for an ITM Index Swaption position that expires within the MPOR. The example calculation provided in Table 5 is intended to provide further transparency of ICC's back-testing P/L treatment of ITM Index Swaptions that expire within the MPOR.
ICC proposes additional clarifications to the Back-Testing Framework. The proposed amendments include the addition of footnote 1 in Subsection 1.1 that clarifies `Net Asset Value' is also referred to and is equivalent to `Mark to Market.' Also, ICC proposes to change references from “P&L” in Table 3 and Table 4 to “P/L” to consistently refer to `profit or loss' throughout the Back-Testing Framework.
Lastly, ICC proposes to update Section 6, “Revision History”.
ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to ICC's Back-Testing Framework will apply uniformly across all market participants. Therefore, ICC 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 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-2024-008 and should be submitted on or before September 4, 2024.
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 Exchange 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
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 Exchange Rule 404, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .10 to allow for the interval between strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares
Further, Policy .10 of Rule 404 allows for the interval between the strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), iShares S&P 500 Index ETF (“IVV”), Invesco QQQ Trust (“QQQ”), iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”), and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (“DIA”) to be $1 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime to be $1 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200 for GLD options, similar to SPY IVV, QQQ, IWM, and DIA. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would make GLD options easier for investors and traders to use and more tailored to their investment needs.
GLD is an Exchange-Traded Fund Share designed to closely track the price and performance of gold bullion. GLD is widely quoted as an indicator of gold stock prices and is a significant indicator of overall economic health. Investors use GLD to diversify their portfolios and benefit from market trends. Additionally, GLD is a leading product in its asset class that trades within a “complex” where, in addition to the underlying security, there are multiple instruments available for hedging such as, COMEX Gold Futures; Gold Daily Futures; iShares GOLD Trust; SPDR GOLD Minishares Trust; Aberdeen Physical Gold Trust; and GraniteShares Gold Shares.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wider base of GLD options affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities, particularly in the midst of current price trends. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in GLD significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities. The Exchange therefore believes that by having smaller strike intervals in GLD, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 interval above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying ETF moving less than 1%. The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Considering the fact that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that GLD have consistently inclined in price toward the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the current $200 level (above which intervals increase 500% to $5), may have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume. The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with GLD options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing GLD options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point.
The proposed strike setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect the increasing value in the underlying and allows investors and traders to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movements of the underlying ETF. Under the current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions would be impaired. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. The Exchange believes that with the proposed rule change, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying. As a result, the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for GLD strike prices more precisely aligned with the smaller, longer-term incremental increases in the underlying ETF. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions using GLD options. Moreover, by allowing series of GLD options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that Members
The Exchange believes that its 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.
The Exchange believes the proposed change will allow investors to more easily use GLD options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in GLD options where the strike price is greater than $200, and ensure that investors in both options are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The proposal allows the Exchange to respond to customer demand to allow GLD options to trade in $1 intervals above a $200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality. As noted above, ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereby options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same option class effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the $200 strike price above which options intervals increase by 500%. This proposal remedies the situation by establishing an exception to the current ETF interval regime for GLD options to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. By way of example, GLD is a leading product in its asset class and it trades within a “complex” where, in addition to the underlying security, there are multiple instruments available for hedging such as, COMEX Gold Futures; Gold Daily Futures; iShares GOLD Trust; SPDR GOLD Minishares Trust; Aberdeen Physical Gold Trust; and GraniteShares Gold Shares.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 1-U (17 CFR 239.93) is used to file current event reports by Tier 2 issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C 77a
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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
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 Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective August 1, 2024.
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 17 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 12% of the market share.
The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to various exchanges. The Exchange notes that its current approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as a flat $0.15 assessment that covers costs to the Exchange for routing (
Currently, under the Fee Codes and Associated Fees section of the Fees Schedule, fee code RP is appended to routed Customer orders to NYSE American (“AMEX”), BOX Options Exchange (“BOX”), Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”), MIAX Options Exchange (“MIAX”) or Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) (excluding orders in SPY options to PHLX) and assesses a charge of $0.25 per contract. The Exchange proposes to amend fee code RP to add applicable Customer orders routed to MIAX Sapphire, LLC (“SPHR”), in anticipation of the launch of the new options exchange. The charge assessed per contract for fee code RP remains the same under the proposed rule change.
The proposed changes result in an assessment of fees that, in anticipation of the launch of another options exchange, is in line with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees, that is, in a manner that approximates the cost of routing Customer orders to other away options exchanges, based on the general cost of transaction fees assessed by the sub-category of away options exchanges for such orders (as well as the Exchange's Routing Costs). The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is optional and that Members will continue to be able to choose where to route applicable Customer orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to amend fee code RP to account for SPHR's expected assessment of fees for Customer orders is reasonable because it is reasonably designed to assess routing fees in line with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees. That is, the proposed rule change is intended to include Customer orders routed to SPHR in the most appropriate sub-category of fees that approximates the cost of routing to a group of away options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as Routing Costs to the Exchange. As noted 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 notes that routing through the Exchange is optional and that Members will continue to be able to choose where to route their Customer orders in the same sub-category group of away exchanges as they currently may choose to route. The proposed rule change 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. The Exchange further notes that another options exchange currently approximates routing fees in a similar manner as the Exchange's current approach.
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. Particularly, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to amend fee code RP will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Members' applicable Customer orders routed to SPHR will automatically yield fee code RP and uniformly be assessed the corresponding fee. The Exchange notes that another options exchange approximates routing costs in a similar manner as the Exchange's current approach.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule changes will 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 16 other options exchanges and off-exchange venues. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% 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.
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”)
On January 25, 2024, the Proposal was published for comment in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 25, 2024, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
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”)
On January 25, 2024, the Proposal was published for comment in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 23c-1(a) under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.23c-1(a)) permits a closed-end fund to repurchase its securities for cash if, in addition to the other requirements set forth in the rule, the following conditions are met: (i) payment of the purchase price is accompanied or preceded by a written confirmation of the purchase (“written confirmation”); (ii) the asset coverage per unit of the security to be purchased is disclosed to the seller or his agent (“asset coverage disclosure”); and (iii) if the security is a stock, the fund has, within the preceding six months, informed stockholders of its intention to purchase stock (“six month notice”). Commission staff estimates that 48 closed-end funds undertake a total of 192 repurchases annually under rule 23c-1.
In addition, the fund must file with the Commission a copy of any written solicitation to purchase securities given by or on behalf of the fund to 10 or more persons. The copy must be filed as an exhibit to Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331and 274.128).
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by October 15, 2024.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to list P.M.-settled broad-based Index options with expirations on the Third Friday-of-the-month. 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 Rules to permit the listing of P.M.-settled
The proposed rule change would permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled options on all broad-based index options that expire on Expiration Fridays. Specifically, the proposed rule
P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options are subject to all provisions of Rule 4.13 and treated the same as A.M.-settled options on the same underlying index that expire on Expiration Fridays, except they are P.M.-settled. P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options have the same exercise style, same number of permissible expirations, same exercise interval prices and limitations, and same position and exercise limits, and will trade in the same minimum price increment, as A.M.-settled options on the same underlying index.
The Exchange believes expanding the availability of P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options to all broad-based index options (rather than having those expirations available for three broad-based indexes only) will expand hedging tools available to market participants while also providing greater trading opportunities, regardless of in which index option market they participate. By expanding the availability of P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options, the proposed rule change (together with currently available Weekly Expirations for all broad-based index options) will provide market participants with opportunities to purchase options on all broad-based index options available for trading on the Exchange in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs and more effectively tailor their investment and hedging strategies and manage their portfolios. In particular, the proposed rule change will allow market participants to roll their positions for additional index options on more trading days, thus with more precision, spread risk across more trading days and incorporate daily changes in the markets, which may reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest in and demand for P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options for broad-based index options beyond SPX, XSP, and MRUT to warrant adding these expirations for additional broad-based index options and that P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options will continue to provide investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives. Overall, the Exchange believes that permitting the trading of P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options in more broad-based indexes will encourage greater trading in these index options. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will provide opportunities for market participants to benefit from exposure to the market for all broad-based index options with additional P.M.-settlement flexibility.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.1, which governs trading days and hours, in conjunction with the proposed addition of P.M.-settled options on Expiration Fridays in all broad-based index options. Rule 5.1(b)(2)(C) currently provides that on their last trading day, Regular Trading Hours for expiring P.M.-settled SPX, XSP, and MRUT options, as well as Index Options with Nonstandard Expirations, may be effected on the Exchange between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes that the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with trading of P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options. The Exchange does not believe that its Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) will experience any capacity issues as a result of this proposal and represents that it will monitor the trading volume associated with any possible additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
In addition to this, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards in place are adequate to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options on all broad-based index options and will support the protection of investors and the public interest. Furthermore, the trading of P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options will be subject to Exchange Rules governing customer accounts, position and exercise limits, margin requirements and trading halt procedures, among other Rules, which are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that expanding the availability of P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options to all broad-based index options (rather than having these expirations available for three broad-based indexes only) will provide investors with expanded hedging tools and greater trading opportunities and flexibility, regardless of in which broad-based index option market they participate. As a result, investors will have additional means for additional index options to manage their risk exposures and carry out their investment objectives. By offering expanded P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options along with Weekly Expirations (including expirations on Fridays other than Expiration Friday) for all broad-based index options, the proposed rule change will allow market participants to purchase options on all broad-based index options available for trading on the Exchange in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs and more effectively tailor their investment and hedging strategies and manage their portfolios. For example, the proposed rule change will allow market participants to roll their positions in more index options on more trading days, thus with more precision, spread risk across more trading days and incorporate daily changes in the markets, which may reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange represents that it believes that it has the necessary systems capacity to support any additional traffic associated with trading of options on all broad-based index options with P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options and does not believe that its TPHs will experience any capacity issues as a result of this proposal.
The Commission previously recognized that listing P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options for SPX, XSP, and MRUT options was consistent with the Act.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to end trading at 4:00 p.m. on the last trading day for transactions in expiring P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options will prevent continued trading on a product after the exercise settlement value has been fixed, thereby mitigating potential investor confusion and the potential for increased costs to investors as a result of potential pricing divergence at the end of the trading day.
Finally, the proposed rule change to correct the definition of p.m.-settled in Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .13 will benefit investors, as it will mitigate potential confusion of having an outdated definition in the Exchange's Rules. This proposed rule change will have no impact on trading, as the proposed definition of p.m.-settled is consistent with how p.m.-settled options currently settle.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options in all broad-based indexes will be available to all market participants. By permitting P.M.-settled options that expire on Expiration Fridays in additional broad-based indexes, the proposed rule change will provide all investors that participate in the markets for options on more broad-based indexes (in addition to SPX, XSP, and MRUT options) available for trading on the Exchange with greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility to meet their investment and hedging needs, which are already available for SPX, XSP, and MRUT options. Additionally, P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options will trade in the same manner as A.M-settled options on the same indexes. Further, the proposed 4:00 p.m. closing time on Expiration Fridays will apply equally to all market participants trading in P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list P.M.-Settled Third Friday Index Options in all broad-based indexes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because these options are proprietary Exchange products. Other exchanges offer P.M.-settlement on Expiration Fridays for other broad-based index options.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to correct the definition of p.m.-settled in Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .13 will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as it is not a competitive change. This proposed change merely updates an outdated definition in the Exchange's Rules and will have no impact on trading, as the proposed definition of p.m.-settled is consistent with how p.m.-settled options currently settle.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4798-DR), dated 07/12/2024.
Issued on 08/07/2024.
Vanessa Morgan, 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 Texas, dated 07/12/2024, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 10/10/2024.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the State of Texas dated 08/07/2024.
Issued on 08/07/2024.
Alan 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 Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 205056 and for economic injury is 205060.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Texas.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Indiana dated 08/07/2024.
Issued on 08/07/2024.
Vanessa Morgan, 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 Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
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 20501C and for economic injury is 205020.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration are Indiana, Michigan.
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 4th quarter of FY 2024, and other business.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, September 9, 2024 at 1 p.m. ET.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 430 E Street NW, Washington, DC.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-660-4979,
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (WB24-39—8/1/24) for permission to use select data from the Board's 2020-2022 masked Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB24-39.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists Grandfathering Registration for projects by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
July 1-31, 2024.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists GF Registration for projects, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR part 806, subpart E, for the time period specified above:
1. Team Ten LLC dba American Eagle Paper Mills, GF Certificate No. GF-202407278, Warriors Mark Township, Huntingdon County, and Snyder Township and Tyrone Borough, Blair County, Pa.; Hundred Springs, Cold Springs, Stover Springs, and South Bald Eagle Creek and consumptive use; Issue Date: July 18, 2024.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will conduct its regular business meeting on September 12, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. Also the Commission published a document in the
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 12, 2024, at 9 a.m.
This public meeting will be conducted in person and digitally from the Lord Baltimore Hotel, 20 W Baltimore Street, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: 717-238-0423; fax: 717-238-2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Adoption of the FY 2026 current expense budget; (2) Adoption of the member allocation for FY 2026; (3) approval of contracts and grants; (4) action on rulemaking for agency procurement, bid protest procedures and other changes to Part 801 (tabled at June Meeting); and (5) actions on 24 regulatory program projects.
This agenda is complete at the time of issuance, but other items may be added, and some stricken without further notice. The listing of an item on the agenda does not necessarily mean that
The meeting will be conducted both in person at the Lord Baltimore Hotel, 20 W. Baltimore Street, Baltimore, Maryland and digitally. The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. The public may access the Business Meeting remotely via Zoom:
Written comments pertaining to items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically at the link Business Meeting Comments. Comments are due to the Commission for all items on the business meeting agenda on or before September 9, 2024. Comments will not be accepted at the business meeting noticed herein.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists Approvals by Rule for projects by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
July 1-31, 2024.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22 (f) for the time period specified above.
1. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Baumunk North B Drilling Pad; ABR-201406004.R2; Fox Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
2. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Benscoter ; ABR-20090601.R3; Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
3. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Clark Drilling Pad; ABR-201406008.R2; Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
4. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Evanchick; ABR-20090604.R3; Asylum Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
5. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Mowry; ABR-20090527.R3; Tuscarora Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
6. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Otten; ABR-20090526.R3; Asylum Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
7. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Przybyszewski; ABR-20090555.R3; Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
8. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: SGL 12 O PAD; ABR-201906002.R1; Franklin Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
9. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Strom; ABR-20090602.R3; Monroe Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
10. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: VanNoy; ABR-20090535.R3; Granville Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
11. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Vargson; ABR-20090605.R3; Granville Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
12. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: WGC; ABR-201205014.R2; Albany Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
13. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Wissler Drilling Pad; ABR-201406005.R2; McNett Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
14. RENEWAL—Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC; Pad ID: SHEDDEN (01 013/043) D; ABR-20090603.R3; Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
15. RENEWAL—Seneca Resources Company, LLC; Pad ID: CRV D08-Pad G; ABR-201406007.R2; Norwich and Sargeant Townships, McKean County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 15, 2024.
16. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Czop Drilling Pad; ABR-201406009.R2; Fox Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
17. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: MTL; ABR-201906003.R1; Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
18. RENEWAL—EQT ARO LLC; Pad ID: C.O.P. Tract 285 (1000); ABR-20090408.R3; Grugan Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
19. RENEWAL—EQT ARO LLC; Pad ID: COP Tr 252 #1000H; ABR-20090444.R3; Grugan Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
20. RENEWAL—EQT ARO LLC; Pad ID: COP Tract 285 (1001H, 1002H); ABR-20090413.R3; Grugan Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
21. RENEWAL—Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC; Pad ID: DCNR 587 (02 001); ABR-20090609.R3; Ward Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of
22. RENEWAL—Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC; Pad ID: Guillaume 714; ABR-201206009.R2; Liberty Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
23. RENEWAL—Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC; Pad ID: WILLIAMS (01 041/042) R; ABR-20090611.R3; Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
24. RENEWAL—Seneca Resources Company, LLC; Pad ID: CRV Pad C08-X; ABR-201406010.R2; Shippen Township, Cameron County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
25. RENEWAL—SWN Production Company, LLC; Pad ID: Humbert Pad (RU-8); ABR-201206003.R2; New Milford Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9990 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
26. RENEWAL—XTO Energy Inc.; Pad ID: Jenzano; ABR-20090713.R3; Franklin Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
27. RENEWAL—XTO Energy Inc.; Pad ID: Temple; ABR-20090714.R3; Moreland Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2024.
28. Blackhill Energy LLC; Pad ID: Black Sam Bellamy Well Pad; ABR-202407001; Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 29, 2024.
29. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Welles 1; ABR-20090610.R3; Terry Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 29, 2024.
30. RENEWAL—XTO Energy Inc.; Pad ID: Marquardt; ABR-20090712.R3; Penn Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 29, 2024.
31. RENEWAL—Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Deremer; ABR-201407001.R2; Tuscarora Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 30, 2024.
32. RENEWAL—SWN Production Company, LLC; Pad ID: KOZIOL PAD; ABR-201206016.R2; New Milford Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9990 mgd; Approval Date: July 30, 2024.
33. RENEWAL—EQT ARO LLC; Pad ID: COP Tract 289 Pad A; ABR-20090410.R3; McHenry Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 31, 2024.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists General Permits approved by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
July 1-31, 2024
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists General Permits for projects, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806.17(c)(4), for the time period specified above.
1. Furman Foods, Inc., dba Furmano's—Well 9, General Permit Approval of Coverage No. GP-02-20240707, Point Township, Northumberland County, Pa.; emergency or maintenance activity groundwater withdrawal approved up to 0.504 mgd (30-day average) Approval Date: July 16, 2024.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of proposed MOU; request for comments.
The FHWA and the State of Maine, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (State), propose a MOU providing participation of the State in the Categorical Exclusion Assignment program. This program allows FHWA to assign its authority and responsibility for determining whether certain designated activities within the geographic boundaries of the State, as specified in the proposed MOU, are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number FHWA-2024-0058, by any of the methods described below. To ensure that you do not duplicate your submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
For FHWA: Gary Scholze; by email at
This document, a complete copy of the proposed MOU, background documents, and comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Section 326 of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), creates a program that allows the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Secretary), to assign, and a State to assume, responsibility for determining whether certain highway projects are included within classes of action that are categorically excluded (CE) from requirements for environmental assessments or environmental impact statements pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
The FHWA would execute Maine's participation in this program through an MOU. Statewide decisionmaking responsibility would be assigned for all activities identified in the MOU within the categories listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c) and those listed as examples in 23 CFR 771.111(d), and any activities added through FHWA rulemaking to those listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c) or example activities listed in 23 CFR 771.117(d) after the date of the execution of this MOU. In addition to the NEPA CE determination responsibilities, the MOU would assign to the State the responsibility for conducting Federal environmental review, consultation, and other related activities for projects that are subject to the MOU with respect to the following Federal laws and Executive Orders:
The MOU allows the State to act in the place of FHWA in carrying out the functions described above, except with respect to government-to-government consultations with federally recognized Indian Tribes. The FHWA will retain responsibility for conducting formal government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes, which is required under some of the above-listed laws and Executive Orders. The State may also assist FHWA with formal consultations, with consent of a Tribe, but FHWA remains responsible for the consultation.
This assignment includes transfer to the State of Maine the obligation to fulfill the assigned environmental responsibilities on any proposed projects meeting the criteria in Stipulation 1(B) of the MOU that were determined to be CEs prior to the effective date of the proposed MOU but that have not been completed as of the effective date of the MOU.
The FHWA will consider the comments submitted on the proposed MOU when making its decision on whether to execute this MOU. The
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will hold a public roundtable meeting concerning bus operator visibility. Transit bus manufacturers will present their research and actions to improve bus operator visibility through vehicle design. This roundtable will be a forum for discussion of bus safety design elements that impact operator visibility, including mirror size and placement and A-pillar design. Participants will also discuss opportunities for manufacturers to standardize safety features. The meeting will include time for public comment.
The roundtable will be held on September 10, 2024, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The roundtable will be held virtually. Those interested in attending this public meeting should register in advance at
For information on the roundtable meeting, contact Ethan Novak, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, FTA, by telephone at (202) 366-1662 or
FTA is holding a public roundtable to better understand how bus manufacturers consider bus operator visibility in bus design. This meeting is intended for bus manufacturers and other stakeholders interested in improving bus operator visibility through vehicle design. The roundtable meeting is open to the public.
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 Supplementary Information section for applicable date(s).
OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, 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 Assistant Director for Enforcement, Compliance and Analysis, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On July 30, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. HASHEMI, Sayyed Ali Seraj (a.k.a. HASHEMI, Ali; a.k.a. SERAJHASHEMI, Seyed Ali), China; Iran; DOB 05 Sep 1976; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; National ID No. 0452521629 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: BEIJING SHINY NIGHTS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of Executive Order 13382 of June 28, 2005, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters,” 70 FR 38567, 3 CFR, 2005 Comp., p. 170 (E.O. 13382), for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, BEIJING SHINY NIGHTS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
2. JAVAR, Saeed Hamidi (a.k.a. JOVAR, Said Hamidi), Tehran, Iran; DOB 16 Sep 1983; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport F24341979 (Iran) expires 27 May 2017; National ID No. 0063519445 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: BEIJING SHINY NIGHTS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, BEIJING SHINY NIGHTS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
3. SORBANI, Ezzatullah Ghasemian (a.k.a. GASEMIAN, Ezzatollah; a.k.a. SORBONI, Ezzatollah Ghasemian; a.k.a. SURBENI, Ezzatollah Ghasemian), Tehran, Iran; DOB 01 Feb 1967; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; National ID No. 2090512385 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: AZMOON PAJOHAN HESGAR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of E.O. 13382 for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, AZMOON PAJOHAN HESGAR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
4. ABDOLLAHI, Mohammad (a.k.a. RICHTER, Aurik), Esfahan, Iran; DOB 18 Sep 1992; POB Esfahan, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of E.O. 13382 for acting or purporting to act for
5. TONG, Thomas Ho Ming, Hong Kong, China; DOB 19 Nov 1971; POB Hong Kong, China; nationality China; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport HA0872080 (Hong Kong) (individual) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
1. AZMOON PAJOHAN HESGAR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (a.k.a. AZMOUN PAZOHAN HESGAR; a.k.a. AZMUN PEZHUHAN HESGAR CO), No. 265, Ground Floor, Twenty-Seventh St, Amir Sarlashgar Hossein Lashgari Highway, Esteghlal Town (Jadeh Makhsos), Tehran 1399816111, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Organization Established Date 22 Jun 2011; National ID No. 10320581166 (Iran); Registration Number 407278 (Iran) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND ARMED FORCES LOGISTICS).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND ARMED FORCES LOGISTICS, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
2. BUY BEST ELECTRONIC PARS COMPANY (a.k.a. KHARID-E BARTAR ELECTRONIC PARS; a.k.a. “BUY BEST ELECTRONIC”), Block No. 20, 3rd Floor, North Unit, Sadeqiyeh Square, Shahid Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfahani Highway, Marvdasht St, District 14, Tehran 1451613418, Iran; Number 20, Unit 7, Marvdasht Street, 2nd Sadeghiyeh Square, Tehran, Iran; Number 110, First Floor, Tavakol Shopping Center, Tehran, Iran; 1201 Room, Guo Li Building-Zhonghang Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, China; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of E.O. 13382 for being owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, JAVAR, Saeed Hamidi, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
3. SHENZHEN RION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (a.k.a. RION TECHNOLOGY), 4F, Building 1, Phase II Workshop, Fu'an Industrial City, Dayang Development Zone, Fuyong Sub-District, Baoan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518100, China; No. 90, Dayang Road, Fuyong Town, Baoan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518100, China; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND ARMED FORCES LOGISTICS, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
4. BRIGHT SHORE INC LIMITED, Room 1004, 10/F, Block B, Hung Hom Commercial Centre, 37-39 Ma Tau Wai Road, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China; 7/F, Pearl Oriental Tower, 225 Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China; Organization Established Date 09 May 2018; Company Number 2692320 (Hong Kong); Business Registration Number 69335785 (Hong Kong) [NPWMD] (Linked To: TONG, Thomas Ho Ming).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of E.O. 13382 for being owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, TONG, Thomas Ho Ming, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
5. BTW INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Flat 1512, 15/F, Lucky Centre, Hong Kong, China; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Organization Established Date 26 Jan 2022; Company Number 3124719 (Hong Kong); Business Registration Number 73761413 (Hong Kong) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
6. CLOUD ELEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Organization Established Date 25 Jan 2021; Company Number 3014512 (Hong Kong); Business Registration Number 72602997 (Hong Kong) [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
7. TAS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. TAS TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED), Room 6, Block A, 23/F Hover Industrial Building 26-38 Kwai Cheong Road, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong, China; Room 2306, Block A, 23/F Hover Industrial Building, 26-38 Kwai Cheong Road, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong, China; Room 610, 6th Floor, Xusheng Research and Development Building, Yintian, Xixiang, Bao'an District, Shenzhen, China; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, ELECTRO OPTIC SAIRAN INDUSTRIES CO., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
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: Bradley T. Smith, 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 Assistant Director Compliance, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On July 31, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. AL-SHAHARE, Ahmed Khaled Yahya (a.k.a. ALSHAHARE, Ahmed Khaled Yahya), Guangzhou, China; DOB 1990; nationality Yemen; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Passport 06085991 (Yemen) expires 14 Mar 2022 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: GUANGZHOU ALSHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224), 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041, 3 CFR, 2019 Comp., p. 356 (E.O. 13224, as amended) for being a leader or official of, GUANGZHOU ALSHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. AL-KINAI, Maher Yahya Muhammad Mutahar (a.k.a. AL-KAYNA'I, Mahir Yahya; a.k.a. AL-KAYNA'I, Mahir Yahya Muhammad), Sanaa, Yemen; DOB 1987; nationality Yemen; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; National ID No. 01010036435 (Yemen) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ANSARALLAH). Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, ANSARALLAH, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
1. AL-SHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LTD, Office 602, Al Kinddy Tower, Haddah Street, Sanaa, Yemen; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 2016; Organization Type: Other transportation support activities [SDGT] (Linked To: ANSARALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, ANSARALLAH, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
2. GUANGZHOU ALSHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED (a.k.a. GUANGZHOU SHA HAOLI TRADING CO., LTD.), Zhu Jiang Xi Lu 15 Hao 21 Ceng, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510000, China; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 01 Sep 2016; Registration Number 440101400191266 (China); Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91440101MA59ELM08Q (China) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL-SHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LTD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, AL-SHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
3. HONGKONG ALSHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 27 Jun 2016; Company Number 2395642 (Hong Kong); Business Registration Number 66349242 (Hong Kong) [SDGT] (Linked To: GUANGZHOU ALSHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(B) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, GUANGZHOU ALSHAHARI UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
4. YEMEN TELECOMMUNICATION ASSET COMPANY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (a.k.a. YTAC COMPANY; a.k.a. “Y-TAC”), Bayt Baws, Sanaa, Yemen; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 20 Dec 2020; Trade License No. 295003 (Yemen) [SDGT] (Linked To: ANSARALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, ANSARALLAH, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5884-A, Employee Retention Credit for Employers Affected by Qualified Disaster.
Written comments should be received on or before October 15, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Jason Schoonmaker, (801) 620-2128, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Supplemental notice of filing and additional request for comments.
This supplemental notice of filing announces a correction to the stoichiometric material consumption equation in the notice of filing for the nylon 6 petition that was published in the
Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received on or before October 15, 2024.
Commenters are encouraged to submit public comments or requests for a public hearing relating to this petition electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Camille Edwards Bennehoff at (202) 317-6855 (not a toll-free number).
(a)
A petition was filed pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2022-26 (2022-29 I.R.B. 90), requesting that nylon 6 be added to the list of taxable substances under section 4672(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (List). The notice of filing summarizing the nylon 6 petition and requesting comments was published in the
This supplemental notice of filing provides the corrected stoichiometric material consumption equation for nylon 6 in paragraph (b) of this document. The stoichiometric material consumption equation is corrected to read as follows:
The other petition information provided in paragraph (b) of this document is unchanged from the original notice of filing for nylon 6. Although the only change from the original notice of filing is to the stoichiometric material consumption equation, this document also includes all of the other information presented on the corrected petition to avoid confusion and is provided for public notice and comment pursuant to section 9 of Rev. Proc. 2022-26.
The petition requesting the addition of nylon 6 to the List is based on weight and—as noted previously—contains the information detailed in paragraph (b) of this document. The publication of petition information in this supplemental notice of filing is not a determination and does not constitute Treasury Department or IRS confirmation of the accuracy of the information published.
Pursuant to section 10.02 of Rev. Proc. 2022-26, the IRS and Petitioner agreed to extend the 180-day determination period.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
Nylon 6 is made from benzene, propylene, ammonia, methane, and sulfuric acid; however, sulfuric acid is cancelled from the stoichiometric material consumption equation due to no net consumption/production. Taxable chemicals constitute 46.64 percent by weight of the materials used to produce this substance.
(6)
The hydrolytic polymerization of nylon 6 generally entails heating a mixture of caprolactam and water to ~270°C in an inert atmosphere of nitrogen and holding until equilibrium conditions are achieved. The three principal reactions in this process are summarized below:
1. In the initiation step of the process, the caprolactam ring is hydrolyzed via ring opening with the addition of one water molecule to become amino-caproic acid.
2. In the next step of the mechanism, the amino-caproic acid acts as the initiating species to begin the addition polymerization by ring-opening of caprolactam.
3. The last major mechanism step of the hydrolytic polymerization of nylon 6 is the condensation of primary amine and carboxylic acid chain-ends to form an amide linkage in the now higher molecular weight polyamide with the simultaneous loss of a water molecule.
(7)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(9)
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 5, 2024.
The meeting will be held virtually.
Ms. Anna Millikan, Office of National Public Liaison, at 202-317-6564 or send an email to
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that a public meeting of the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) will be held on Thursday, September 5, 2024, to discuss topics that may be recommended for inclusion in a future report of the Council. The virtual meeting will take place at 3 p.m. eastern time.
To confirm your attendance, members of the public may contact Anna Millikan at 202-317-6564 or send an email to
Should you wish the IRSAC to consider a written statement germane to the Council's work, please call 202-317-6564 or email
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice of final priorities.
In June 2024, the Commission published a notice of proposed policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2025. After reviewing public comment received pursuant to the notice of proposed priorities, the Commission has identified its policy priorities for the upcoming amendment cycle and hereby gives notice of these policy priorities.
Jennifer Dukes, Senior Public Affairs Specialist, (202) 502-4597.
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
In June 2024, the Commission asked members of the public and stakeholders in the criminal justice system to tell the Commission what policymaking, research, and operational work it should conduct in the amendment cycle ending
(1) Simplifying the guidelines and clarifying their role in sentencing, including revising the “categorical approach” for purposes of the career offender guideline and possibly amending the
(2) Reducing the costs of unnecessary incarceration.
(3) Promoting public safety.
(4) Improving community supervision.
(5) Expanding the Commission's use of expertise, evidence, and best practices.
(6) Promoting evidence-based approaches to offense and individual characteristics.
While the Commission will continue to evaluate all the ideas it has received, the Commission is committed to prioritizing—during the upcoming amendment cycle and beyond—one or more of these themes, as well as implementing any legislation warranting Commission action and resolving circuit conflicts pursuant to the Commission's authority under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) and
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice.
In view of an upcoming vacancy in the at-large membership of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group, the United States Sentencing Commission hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to the at-large membership of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group to apply. An applicant for membership in the Tribal Issues Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission as indicated in the
Application materials for the at-large membership of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group should be received not later than October 14, 2024.
An applicant for the at-large membership of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is
Jennifer Dukes, Senior Public Affairs Specialist, (202) 502-4597. More information about the Tribal Issues Advisory Group is available on the Commission's website at
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
The Tribal Issues Advisory Group is a standing advisory group of the United States Sentencing Commission established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under the charter for the Tribal Issues Advisory Group, the purpose of the advisory group is (1) to assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 994(o); (2) to provide to the Commission its views on federal sentencing issues relating to American Indian and Alaska Native defendants and victims, and to offenses committed in Indian country; (3) to engage in meaningful consultation and outreach with tribes, tribal governments, and tribal organizations regarding federal sentencing issues that have tribal implications; (4) to disseminate information regarding federal sentencing issues to tribes, tribal governments, and tribal organizations; and (5) to perform any other related functions as the Commission requests. The advisory group consists of no more than nine members, each of whom may serve not more than two consecutive three-year terms. Of those nine members, not more than one shall be a federal judge; two shall be from the Executive Branch (one from the United States Department of Justice and one from the United States Department of the Interior); one shall be from a federal public defender organization or community defender organization; one shall be a tribal court judge; and not more than four shall be at-large members.
Members of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group are appointed by the Commission. To be eligible to serve as a member, an individual must have expertise, knowledge and/or experience in the issues considered by the Tribal Issues Advisory Group. The Commission intends that the at-large membership shall include individuals with membership in or experience with tribes, tribal governments, and tribal organizations, appointed in a manner that ensures representation among tribal communities diverse in size, geographic location, and other unique characteristics.
In view of an upcoming vacancy in the at-large membership of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group, the Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to the at-large membership of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group to apply by sending a letter of interest and a resume to the Commission as indicated in the
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice.
In view of five upcoming vacancies in the membership of the Victims Advisory Group, the United States Sentencing Commission hereby invites any individual who has knowledge, expertise, or experience in federal crime victimization to apply to be appointed to the advisory group. An applicant for membership in the Victims Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission as indicated in the
Application materials for membership in the Victims Advisory Group should be received not later than October 14, 2024.
An applicant for membership in the Victims Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is
Jennifer Dukes, Senior Public Affairs Specialist, (202) 502-4597. More information about the Victims Advisory Group is available on the Commission's website at
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
The Victims Advisory Group is a standing advisory group of the United States Sentencing Commission established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under the charter for the advisory group, the purpose of the advisory group is (1) to assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 994(o); (2) to provide to the Commission its views on the Commission's activities and work, including proposed priorities and amendments, as they relate to victims of crime; (3) to disseminate information regarding sentencing issues to organizations represented by the Victims Advisory Group and to other victims of crime and victims advocacy groups, as appropriate; and (4) to perform any other functions related to victims of crime as the Commission requests. The advisory group consists of not more than nine members, each of whom may serve not more than two consecutive three-year terms. Each member is appointed by the Commission.
In view of five upcoming vacancies in the membership of the Victims Advisory Group, the Commission invites any individual who has knowledge, expertise, or experience in federal crime victimization to apply to be appointed to the Victims Advisory Group by sending a letter of interest and a resume to the Commission as indicated in the
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice.
In view of upcoming vacancies in the voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group, the United States Sentencing Commission hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to one of the vacancies to apply. The voting memberships covered by this notice are two circuit memberships (for the First and Eleventh Circuits) and one at-large membership. An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission as indicated in the
Application materials for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should be received not later than October 14, 2024.
An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is
Jennifer Dukes, Senior Public Affairs Specialist, (202) 502-4597. More information about the Practitioners Advisory Group is available on the Commission's website at
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
The Practitioners Advisory Group is a standing advisory group of the United States Sentencing Commission established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under the charter for the advisory group, the purpose of the advisory group is (1) to assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 994(o); (2) to provide to the Commission its views on the Commission's activities and work, including proposed priorities and amendments; (3) to disseminate to defense attorneys, and to other professionals in the defense community, information regarding federal sentencing issues; and (4) to perform other related functions as the Commission requests. The advisory group consists of not more than 17 voting members, each of whom may serve not more than two consecutive three-year terms. Of those 17 voting members, one shall be Chair, one shall be Vice Chair, 12 shall be circuit members (one for each federal judicial circuit other than the Federal Circuit), and three shall be at-large members.
To be eligible to serve as a voting member, an individual must be an
In view of three upcoming vacancies in the voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group, the Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to a voting membership covered by this notice (