Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rulemaking amends Marketing Order No. 927, which regulates the handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington. The amendment revises the Fresh Pear Committee's (Committee) approval requirement for recommending modifications to the marketing order's fresh pear handling regulations from 80 to 75 percent.
This rule is effective December 23, 2024.
Geronimo Quinones, Marketing Specialist, or Matthew Pavone, Chief, Rulemaking Services Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 927, as amended (7 CFR part 927), regulating the handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington. Part 927 referred to as the “Order” is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of pears operating within the area of production.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined this final rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule shall not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or supersede any State program covering pears grown in Oregon and Washington.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(15)(A)), any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 8c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The amendment of section 8c(17) of the Act and the supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders depending upon the nature and complexity of the proposed amendment, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.
AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendment in this final rule is not unduly complex, and the nature of the amendment is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the Order. This final rule modifies the Committee's approval requirement for recommending modifications to the Order's fresh pear handling regulations from 80 to 75 percent. During the producer referendum, the amendment was favored by 99 percent of pear producers voting, who represented 99 percent of the volume of pears produced by those voting. A discussion of the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities is discussed later in the “Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis” section of this final rule. The amendment applies equally to all producers and handlers, regardless of
The Committee recommended this amendment to the Order following deliberations at a public meeting held on June 2, 2022. The Committee recommended this change by vote of nine in favor and two opposed, with one abstention. The two opposing voters did not feel the proposed change was necessary, and the abstention voter wanted an even lower voter approval requirement. The Committee submitted its formal recommendation to amend the Order through the informal rulemaking process on August 23, 2022, and subsequently provided AMS clarification about the recommendation on December 1, 2022.
A proposed rule soliciting public comments on the proposed amendment published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 700 growers of fresh pears in the production area and 27 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, small agricultural producers of pears are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3,500,000 (North American Industry Classification System code 111339, Other Non-citrus Fruit Farming), and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are equal to or less than $34,000,000 (North American Industry Classification System Code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the 2024 average grower price received for fresh pears produced in Oregon and Washington was $28.13 per 44-pound standard box or equivalent. Committee data indicates total production was 14,857,887 44-pound standard boxes or equivalent in the 2022-23 fiscal period. The total 2022-23 fiscal period value of assessable fresh “summer/fall” and “winter” pears grown in Oregon and Washington was roughly $417,952,361 (14,857,887 44-pound standard boxes or equivalent multiplied by $28.13 per box equals $417,952,361). Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of growers (700), yields an estimated average receipt per grower of roughly $597,075.
According to USDA Market News data, the reported average terminal price for 2024 Oregon and Washington fresh pears are roughly $39.24 per 44-pound standard box or equivalent (data reported in
AMS has determined that the amendment, as effectuated by this final rule, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Rather, large and small entities alike would be expected to benefit from the Board's improved ability to address important issues of interest to all on a timely basis. No small businesses are unduly or disproportionately burdened.
This final rule revises a provision in the Order's subpart regulating handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington. This change aligns the approval requirement for recommending modifications to the Order's fresh pear handling regulations, with all other Committee voting requirements within the Order. The revised voting requirements will result in less confusion for some Committee members, which can disrupt Committee operations.
The Committee considered the benefits and costs of maintaining the status quo as an alternative to this action. However, the Committee believes it is necessary to bring all voting requirements in-line for clarity and understanding to ensure the efficient execution of the Order.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary because of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pear handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public-sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
The Committee's meetings are widely publicized throughout the pear production area. All interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the meeting held on June 2, 2022, was open to the public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on the proposed amendment.
A proposed rule concerning this action published in the
A proposed rule and referendum order was then published on April 29, 2024 (89 FR 33288). That document directed that a referendum among Oregon and Washington pear producers be conducted from May 13, 2024, through May 27, 2024, to determine whether they favored the proposal. To become effective, the amendment had to be approved by either two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum or by those representing at least two-thirds of the volume of pears grown by those voting in the referendum. The referendum results show the amendment was supported by 99 percent of producers voting, who represented 99 percent of the volume of pears produced by those voting.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of Marketing Order 927; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
1. Marketing Order 927 as amended, and as hereby amended and all the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
2. Marketing Order 927 as amended, and as hereby amended regulates the handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the Order;
3. Marketing Order 927 as amended, and as hereby amended is limited in application to the smallest regional production area, which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several marketing orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
4. Marketing Order 927 as amended, and as hereby amended prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of pears produced or packed in the production area; and
5. All handling of pears grown or handled in the production area, as defined in Marketing Order 927 is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
It is hereby determined that:
1. The issuance of this amendatory Order, amending the aforesaid Order, is favored or approved by producers representing at least two-thirds of the volume of pears produced by those voting in a referendum on the question of approval and who, during the period of July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, were engaged within the production area in the production of such pears.
2. The issuance of this amendatory Order advances the interests of producers of pears in the production area pursuant to the declared policy of the Act.
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the said Order as hereby proposed to be amended as follows:
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the Order contained in the proposed rule issued by the Administrator and published in the
Marketing agreements, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the AMS proposes to amend 7 CFR part 927 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(a) Decisions of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee with respect to any recommendations to the Secretary pursuant to the establishment or modification of a supplemental rate of assessment for an individual variety or subvariety of pears shall be made by affirmative vote of not less than 75 percent of the applicable total number of votes, computed in the manner described in paragraph (b) of this section, of all members. Decisions of the Fresh Pear Committee pursuant to the provisions of § 927.50 shall be made by an affirmative vote of not less than 75 percent of the applicable total number of votes, computed in the manner prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, of all members.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
This rule is effective without actual notice from November 22, 2024, through November 25, 2024. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 18, 2024, until November 22, 2024. It is subject to enforcement from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. each day from November 18, 2024, through November 22, 2024, and November 25, 2024, and from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day from November 23, 2024, through November 24, 2025.
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 Lieutenant Timothy Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-5130, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the 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. We must establish this safety zone promptly to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the possibility of being hit by free falling debris, descending vehicles or vehicle components, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that hazards inherent in rocket launching activity necessitate provisions to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment while it is taking place. The hazards inherent in SpaceX's rocket launching activities include the chance of being hit by free falling debris, descending vehicles or vehicle components.
This rule is subject to enforcement from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. each day from November 18, 2024, through November 22, 2024, and November 25, 2024, and from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day from November 23, 2024, through November 24, 2025. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zones during the period in which the rule is subject to enforcement without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361-939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866, 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, and duration of the safety zones. The safety zones cover an area of the South Bay, TX, approximately 4.5 square miles in size, and an area of the Gulf of Mexico, offshore of Boca Chica Beach, TX, approximately 115 square miles in size. The temporary safety zones will be subject to enforcement for a period of 4 hours a day, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. each day from November 18, 2024, through November 22, 2024, and November 25, 2024, and from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day from November 23, 2024, through November 24, 2025. The rule does not completely prohibit vessel traffic within the waterway, and it allows mariners to request permission to enter the zones.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard 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 temporary 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 contact 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
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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of two temporary safety zones for navigable waters in the Gulf of Mexico and South Bay. The safety zones are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by rocket launching activity that may include free falling debris and/or descending vehicles or vehicle components under various means of control. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c), in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration is available for viewing in the docket. For instructions on how to locate it, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving in part and disapproving in part a regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), dated April 4, 2022 (“Haze Plan” or “2022 Plan”) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second planning period. North Carolina's 2022 SIP submission was submitted to address the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as “Class I areas”). The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second planning period of the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Act.
This rule is effective December 23, 2024.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0786. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michele Notarianni, Multi-Air Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9031 or electronic mail at
On April 4, 2022, the North Carolina DAQ submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second planning period. DAQ made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.
After reviewing the entirety of the record including comments submitted, EPA is now taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part North Carolina's Haze Plan. Specifically, EPA is approving the portions of the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), (f)(4) through (6), and (g)(1) through (5). EPA is disapproving the portions of the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3) and (i)(2) through (4) due to the inadequate record associated with the four-factor analysis (FFA) for Domtar Paper, LLC (Domtar) located in Plymouth, North Carolina, as described in more detail in section II. EPA is not finalizing its previously proposed conditional approval.
Disapproving a SIP submission establishes a two-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the relevant requirements under CAA section 110(c), unless EPA approves a subsequent SIP submission that meets these requirements.
This final action represents a logical outgrowth of the proposal, following EPA's proposed partial approval and partial conditional approval, and receipt of public comments. EPA specifically solicited comments on the adequacy of DAQ's analyses, including the FFAs, determination of controls necessary for reasonable progress, and the adequacy of the submitted permit conditions, including associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and whether the State met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iv).
In response to the NPRM, EPA received comment letters from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Center for Biological Diversity, and Southern Environmental Law Center (collectively referred to as the “Conservation Groups”); U.S. National Park Service (NPS); and 7 Directions of Service, Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine, Center for Biological Diversity, CleanAIRE NC, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Dogwood Alliance, Forest Keeper, Friends of Big Ivy, I Heart Pisgah, Mountain True, NPCA, North Carolina Black Alliance, and Toxic Free North Carolina (collectively referred to as the “Organizations”). Additionally, EPA received comments from two members of the public. One set of comments from a member of the public is not relevant to this action, and the other set of comments is addressed below. All comments received are available in the docket for this action. A summary of the significant comments received from these commenters and EPA's responses to these comments is below.
Regarding sulfate predictions, figure 6-7 in North Carolina's Haze Plan shows the results of the normalized mean bias and normalized mean error statistical model performance tests for sulfates across the VISTAS region. Figure 6-7 does show that the modeled sulfate levels are biased low, with some values falling outside of the model performance criteria. However, as discussed below, these biases are not uncommon in photochemical modeling analyses and can be addressed with additional analyses. Table 6-10 in the Haze Plan summarizes the sulfate model performance criteria for multiple statistical tests, and figures 6-32 through 6-55 in the Haze Plan graphically depict model performance at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Great Smoky Mountains) (North Carolina/Tennessee); Linville Gorge National Wilderness Area (Linville Gorge); and Swanquarter National Wilderness Area (Swanquarter) which are three of the five Class I areas in North Carolina.
Model bias and error, either high or low, is not uncommon in photochemical modeling analyses due to uncertainties in model inputs and the scientific model formulation, and the fact that all air quality models are simplified approximations of the complex phenomena of atmospheric chemistry, fate, and transport of pollutants. Section 6.0 of EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance discusses uncertainties that may affect model results and states that following the recommendations in the Guidance should help mitigate the uncertainty as much as possible. North Carolina acknowledges in the Haze Plan that model performance is biased low on the 20 percent most impaired days and provided an explanation of why this modeling was nonetheless appropriate for its regulatory determinations in the Haze Plan (which references the 2018 Modeling Guidance in several instances). The 2018 Modeling Guidance states that it is not appropriate to use a “bright-line test” for distinguishing between adequate and inadequate photochemical model performance for a single performance test statistic.
As discussed in section 5.2(d) of EPA's “Guideline on Air Quality Models” contained in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, there are no specific levels of any model performance metric that indicate acceptable model performance. The decision regarding acceptability is heavily influenced by professional judgment of the reviewing authority, which is EPA in this case. Based upon the overall performance of the model for all pollutants affecting visibility, considered holistically, North Carolina's conclusions that the modeling is acceptable for use in the regional haze SIP analyses appear reasonable, and North Carolina provided a reasonable explanation of the model bias.
Just as importantly, North Carolina's steps to correct for this model bias appear reasonable. The Haze Plan explains that the model is applied in a relative sense through the calculation of RRFs following the procedures in 2018 Modeling Guidance for calculating 2028 future year visibility impacts, which mitigates concerns about the low bias in the sulfate model predictions. As described in EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance, RRFs are “the fractional change in air quality concentrations that is simulated due to emissions changes between a base and a future year emissions scenario.”
Applying the model in a relative sense using the RRFs is an important tool in mitigating the impacts of the sulfate modeling underpredictions in the 2011 baseline year on the model projections for the 2028 future year. Section 4.1 of the 2018 Modeling Guidance provides a detailed explanation of why EPA recommends photochemical modeling be applied in a relative sense and explains that problems posed by model bias are expected to be reduced when using the relative approach. Section 7.2.6.1 of North Carolina's Haze Plan explains the calculation of 2028 visibility estimates using the RRF approaches contained in EPA's 2018 Modeling Guidance. Using the RRF approach with an average of five years of Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
In addition, there is no RHR requirement regarding the baseline year for regional photochemical modeling (nor is photochemical modeling required). At the time VISTAS began their regional haze modeling, EPA did not have a more recent baseline emissions inventory year available for state use in the second period regional haze plans. Furthermore, North Carolina explains the use of this particular baseline year and states that the 2011 emissions inventory was the most recently available quality assured statewide emissions inventory when the VISTAS project began.
The 2011 emissions inventory was used to estimate emissions of visibility impairing pollutants in 2028. VISTAS applied reductions expected from
Although North Carolina used the 2011 year as its emissions inventory base year, North Carolina also examined more recent emission inventory information for SO
For the reasons discussed in responses 1.a through 1.c, the VISTAS modeling appears adequate for North Carolina's use in selecting sources for a FFA for the second planning period. However, the requirement to consider the four factors in establishing the long-term strategy (LTS) at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and CAA section 169A(g)(1) encompasses the selection of sources for further analysis, and as discussed above, EPA is disapproving the portions of the Haze Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) due to the inadequate record associated with the Domtar FFA.
These flexibilities, however, are not unbounded. The RHR requires that “[t]he State should consider evaluating major and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources. The State must include in its implementation plan a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated and how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy.”
North Carolina's source selection methodology—including the use of an AoI threshold of greater than or equal to three percent for sulfate and nitrate combined at any North Carolina Class I area for all sources within and outside of the State for follow-up PSAT tagging, and a one percent PSAT threshold on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis for source selection—appears reasonable and is documented in the Haze Plan. A specific approach is not required by the RHR.
The results of this methodology also appear reasonable. North Carolina selected for further analysis the three sources with the largest visibility impacts (accounting for both SO
Most anthropogenic impacts to visibility at the North Carolina Class I areas come from outside of North Carolina and, in fact, they primarily come from outside of the VISTAS states. This is also illustrated in table 7-14 of the Haze Plan, which provides the contributions from 2028 SO
Table 1 illustrates that North Carolina's in-state emissions account for a relatively small fraction of total sulfate plus nitrate visibility impairment at North Carolina's Class I areas which is as follows: approximately 3.68 percent for Great Smoky Mountains; 1.91 percent for Joyce Kilmer; 4.88 percent for Linville Gorge; 5.89 percent for Shining Rock; and 8.66 percent for Swanquarter.
The RHR affords North Carolina flexibility in its choice of both AoI and PSAT thresholds. North Carolina's source selection methodology appears reasonable, and therefore, North Carolina's choice of the three largest impacting sources in the State using its AoI and PSAT criteria appears adequate.
Also, contrary to the Conservation Groups' assertion, sulfates and nitrates were modeled together in the PSAT modeling with the other PM species that impact visibility (
They argue that this comparison shows that the State severely underestimated future emissions for these facilities and note that nothing in the Haze Plan indicates that there have been federally enforceable changes to these Duke Energy EGUs' operating parameters that would justify such large differences between recent actual emissions and future year 2028 projections.
Regarding the Conservation Groups' assertion that “[n]othing in the SIP Revision indicates that there have been federally enforceable changes to the Duke Energy EGUs' operating parameters that would justify such large differences between recent actual emissions and future year 2028 projections,” as explained in response 4.f, under the RHR, sources that do not meet a state's reasonable source selection criteria (such as these five Duke Energy EGUs) are not selected for a FFA and are therefore not required to have emission limits and supporting conditions adopted into the LTS in the SIP to support reasonable progress for the planning period.
With respect to the 2028 emissions projections for the Duke Energy EGUs, North Carolina appears to have used the best assumptions available at the time of SIP development to project the 2011 base year emissions out to 2028 for the five Duke Energy EGUs discussed in this response. The State compared 2017, 2018, and 2019 actual SO
Instead, the Conservation Groups provide qualitative arguments to support their assertion. They assert that the FLMs' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Guidance indicates that photochemical grid models are not the preferred model for evaluating visibility impacts from sources less than 50 km from Class I areas and reference the use of direct plume impact models. However, they are inappropriately citing the FLAG guidance and recommendations, which is not intended to apply to photochemical grid modeling or outside of the permitting context. The FLAG reference to direct plume models (
The Conservation Groups also assert that since the horizontal grid size used in the VISTAS CAMx modeling was 12 km, it is insufficient to resolve the details of emissions plumes from facilities within 50 km of a Class I area and that the model performance degrades substantially at the close-in distances. The general statement from the Conservation Groups is that model performance substantially degrades within 50 km is not supported by any specific evidence in the comments. Therefore, North Carolina's CAMx PSAT modeling appears reasonable for selecting sources for reasonable progress analyses.
The Conservation Groups separately contend that North Carolina's correlation analysis of the sulfate AoI versus PSAT presented in section 7.6.3 of the Haze Plan is flawed. They point out the scatter in the AoI/PSAT ratio data for distances less than 100 km in figure 7-77 of the Haze Plan and argue this makes the State's correlation conclusions invalid. They also refer to the scatter in the sulfate fractional bias values in figure 7-78 in the Haze Plan and argue the AoI versus PSAT correlation is invalid. EPA disagrees. While there is more scatter between the data points less than 100 km from the Class I area, there is clearly a trend that the AoI values are much larger than the PSAT values within 100 km compared to the ratios for further distances. There is logic to this result due to the way the AoI metric is calculated using the Extinction Weighted Residence Times (EWRT) multiplied by the Emissions (Q) divided Distance (d) (EWRTxQ/d). The EWRT is calculated using the frequency that winds (represented by Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) back trajectories) pass over a specific geographic area (represented by a modeling grid cell) on the path to the Class I area.
The photochemical modeling employed by VISTAS and North Carolina is the most refined methodology available for evaluating regional haze visibility impacts. Moreover, North Carolina's AoI screening process identified sources located within 50 km of its Class I areas, including the BRPP facility located approximately 17 km from Swanquarter that met the PSAT source selection criteria and underwent an FFA to evaluate reasonable progress. As discussed above, North Carolina demonstrated in section 7.6.3 of the Haze Plan that the AoI screening technique tends to overestimate visibility impacts for sources located within 100 km of a Class I area. Based upon this AoI overestimation, in section 7.7.3 of the Haze Plan, North Carolina explains why some sources located less than 100 km from its Class I areas were not tagged for PSAT modeling and thus were not selected for FFAs. North Carolina's justification regarding why the other sources within 100 km were not selected for FFAs appears reasonable.
Regarding the Conservation Groups' assertion that the PSAT tagging process was unnecessary, as the AoI step already identified the sources that contributed to impairment at Class I areas, EPA disagrees with the premise of this comment. The standard is not whether the approach is necessary or required, but rather, whether the approach is reasonable and is reasonably explained.
Regarding the Conservation Groups' claim that the State should have adopted a different selection method (such as Q/d) with a lower threshold to select more sources in North Carolina being selected, as discussed above, a state is not required to evaluate all sources of emissions in each planning period. Instead, a state may reasonably select a set of sources for an analysis of control measures. Selecting a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each planning period is also consistent with the RHR, which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a given SIP revision.
For the reasons discussed in responses 2.a through 2.g, North Carolina's source selection methodology appears reasonable. However, the requirement to consider the four factors in establishing the LTS at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and CAA section 169A(g)(1) encompasses the selection of sources for further analysis, and as discussed above, EPA is disapproving the portions of the Haze Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) due to the inadequate record associated with the Domtar FFA.
North Carolina appears to have followed these recommended approaches here. North Carolina considered both SO
Additionally, in order to better understand the trends in PM species contributions to visibility impairment, North Carolina examined more recent IMPROVE monitoring data. More recent IMPROVE monitoring data shows that ammonium sulfate remains the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at North Carolina's Class I areas as discussed in section 2.5.2 of the Haze Plan (particularly figures 2-7 through 2-10 for the 2009-2013 period) and in section 2.6.2 (particularly figures 2-13 through 2-16 for the 2014-2018 period). The 2015-2019 IMPROVE monitoring data (the most recent data available at the time) cited within the Haze Plan (figures 10-1, 10-2, and 10-3) identifies the relative contributions of PM species contributing to the total visibility impairment at the North Carolina Class I areas, which are shown in table 2, below. In spite of increased nitrate contributions on the 20 percent most impaired days (as the Conservation Groups note, often on winter days), as indicated in that table, ammonium nitrate contributions to regional haze at the State's Class I areas remain relatively low at 8 to 17 percent of the total visibility impairment as compared to ammonium sulfate at 50 to 58 percent.
Additionally, in figure 10-7 of the Haze Plan, North Carolina provides a comparison of the sulfate and nitrate five-year averages for the 2009-2013 and 2015-2019 periods for all the Class I areas in the VISTAS region. North Carolina's conclusion that although nitrate contributions have increased for some Class I areas, sulfate remains the dominant visibility impairing species through 2019, appears reasonable.
Furthermore, in tables 7-20 through 7-24 of the Haze Plan, the State provided a calculation of the sulfate and nitrate EWRT used in the AoI analysis for Great Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer, Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter for the 20 percent most impaired days, demonstrating that the sulfate EWRT are significantly higher than the nitrate EWRT. This further supports the importance of focusing on SO
With respect to the Conservation Groups' assertion that nitrate is the biggest contributor to light extinction on multiple of the 20 percent of most impaired days for these North Carolina Class I areas during the 2014-2018 period (especially on winter days), as described above, the average nitrate contribution across the 20 percent most impaired days is still relatively small. Thus, while nitrate impairment may be relatively high on a particular day, the data that states are required to use for regional haze as specified in 40 CFR 51.301 and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) shows ammonium nitrate only contributes 8 to 17 percent of the total visibility impairment (during the 2015-2019 period).
North Carolina's justification for not evaluating sources selected for SO
The Conservation Groups contend that DEC—Marshall exceeded the AoI threshold set by North Carolina, but EPA notes that no Duke Energy EGU exceeded the State's PSAT threshold at any Class I area. Therefore, North Carolina did not evaluate any Duke Energy EGU for potential emissions
As described in the 2019 Guidance,
Regarding the original and revised 2028 SO
Additionally, North Carolina did not select this facility, and therefore, no FFA information is available. However, EPA's analysis confirms that the units are not uncontrolled or lightly controlled, are subject to the MATS rule alternative SO
Regarding the original and revised 2028 SO
Additionally, North Carolina did not select this facility, and therefore, no FFA information is available. However, EPA's analysis confirms that the units are not uncontrolled or lightly controlled, are subject to the MATS rule alternative SO
The Conservation Groups disagree with North Carolina's statement that the “obligation to make reductions permanent and enforceable does not extend to any control or emissions reduction determination outside of the reasonable progress/four-factor analysis.” The Conservation Groups state that the requirement to ensure that emission reductions are enforceable stems from the CAA and the RHR itself and quote the 2021 Clarification Memo for the proposition that existing and “on-the-way” measures must be included in the SIP if they are necessary for reasonable progress. The Conservation Groups also contend that neither the State, EPA, nor the public can verify that reasonable progress will be made if the State's assumed pollution reductions to achieve reasonable progress are not enforceable.
Regarding the statement that “[t]he RHR provides that the measures necessary to the State's long-term strategy for ensuring reasonable progress and its reasonable progress goals must be `as a result of [ ] enforceable emissions limitations . . .' ” EPA agrees.
Regarding the Conservation Groups' references to the 2021 Clarification Memo regarding in-place and on-the-way measures, these references relate to measures necessary for reasonable progress. They do not apply to the Duke Energy EGUs because these units did not meet the State's source selection criteria, and therefore, they do not have measures necessary for reasonable progress. As a result, no measures must be adopted into the SIP for these EGUs.
North Carolina provided a summary in table 7-43 of the SO
North Carolina exceeded the minimum public notice and comment requirements for SIP revisions which are set forth in 40 CFR part 51.
Furthermore, the RHR allows states to rely on technical analyses developed by RPOs when that analysis is approved by all state participants, does not require RPOs to provide notice and comment for its work products, and does not require states to provide notice and comment during the technical development of their regional haze SIPs.
EPA also disagrees with the comment that North Carolina “communicated in its Haze Plan that the VISTAS products on which the State relied for source selection and in setting its reasonable progress goals were
With respect to the comment concerning grant obligations and “grant oversight authority,” EPA has not directly provided any grant money to VISTAS for the second planning period. Regardless, EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' comments regarding the VISTAS work products for the reasons discussed in this notice of final rulemaking.
Contrary to the comment that the Agency “shirks” its CAA obligations, EPA has performed its duties with diligence and integrity. EPA carefully evaluated the Haze Plan and the
EPA's first basis for disapproval of North Carolina's LTS is the inadequate justification that the wet scrubber controls are not cost-effective for HFB2. There is no requirement in the CAA or the RHR for states to establish bright line cost effectiveness thresholds when evaluating control costs in FFAs. The CAA and the RHR require states to evaluate the costs of compliance, and EPA's 2019 Guidance recommends that states follow the recommendations in EPA's CCM to facilitate apples-to-apples comparisons of different controls options for the same source, and comparisons across different sources.
As described in section 7.8 and appendix I of the Haze Plan, the State did not set a specific cost per ton
North Carolina states in appendix I that HFB2 is a unique set-up. It combusts fuels such as, lignin, natural gas, biomass fuel (including paper cores and bleached and unbleached pulp stock), No. 2 fuel oil, used oil, sludge, gases collected in the High-Volume Low-Concentration (HVLC) system, Low-Volume High-Concentration gases, and stripper off gases, and it is used as a control device for several process gas streams at the facility. The State reviewed the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
For several reasons, including consideration of the comments received after proposal, EPA ultimately does not find North Carolina's justification for rejecting the controls compelling. First, although it may be accurate that most if not all hog fuel boilers in the country do not have wet scrubbers installed, Domtar and the State submitted a complete cost analysis and a vendor quote to install a wet scrubber on HFB2. It appears that it is possible to install a wet scrubber on the particular unit (and achieve at least a 95 percent SO
EPA acknowledges the Conservation Groups' assertions that the cost effectiveness values for HFB2 are below the thresholds used by other states during the second planning period, such as Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico which elected to set cost effectiveness thresholds of $10,000/ton of pollutant removed. However, North Carolina was not required by the CAA or RHR to adopt a similar bright-line cost effectiveness threshold when evaluating control costs in FFAs, and the relatively high thresholds of up to $10,000/ton set by Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, do not automatically compel other states to follow suit. Each state has discretion to set (or not set) a reasonable cost threshold and provide a justification for FFA outcomes.
While EPA agrees with the Conservation Groups' overall conclusion that North Carolina did not adequately justify the cost control decisions, EPA does not necessarily agree with all of their specific contentions. For example, EPA disagrees with the argument that North Carolina underestimated the scrubber control efficiency at HFB2. The control efficiency of a wet scrubber is dependent upon a number of variables, including the type and design of the wet scrubber system used, the absorbing and/or reacting solution or slurry used, packed bed height, sump fluid and makeup water balance, scrubber pH, and the concentration of SO
The Conservation Groups included numerous comments on specific elements of the cost calculations for the wet scrubber at HFB2. Since EPA is partially disapproving the LTS with respect to the emissions control decisions at Domtar, it is not necessary to weigh-in on all of the specific deficiencies. However, there are some specific issues where information provided here may help when re-evaluating the need for controls in a potential SIP revision.
EPA's CCM cannot properly account for all uncertainties, and thus, provides that a “retrofit factor” can be applied. The CCM states that it is typical for the retrofit factor of a wet scrubber to be between 0.7 and 1.3, depending on the level of difficulty. In any SIP revision, a retrofit factor greater than 1.0 should be adequately documented with a detailed justification to explain why it is appropriate to inflate the costs above those with an average retrofit difficulty.
EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' statement that the costs of the “unanticipated delays” are included in the contingency costs. Domtar only included the costs of “unanticipated delays” in the retrofit costs. These retrofit costs address the unexpected magnitude of anticipated cost elements; the cost of unexpected delays; the cost of re-engineering and re-fabrication; the cost of correcting design errors; the cost that reflect additional difficulty associated with installing auxiliary equipment; additional insulation and painting of piping and ductwork; costs associated with engineering or supervision during installation; and unanticipated delays that cause production cost. The contingency costs include other unforeseen costs such as the cost difference from a change in bank interest rate from the historically low 3.25 percent that was used at the time the Haze Plan was submitted as well as accounting for the cost difference for assuming a higher end of the range equipment life. The contingency costs also take into account that any capital investment dollars in controls that are deemed reasonable under regional haze would be taking investment dollars away from mill projects that would have a return on investments. The retrofit costs are completely separate from the contingency costs, and therefore, EPA disagrees that any unanticipated delay costs in Domtar's FFA are being double counted.
EPA agrees with the Conservation Groups that a sales tax charge should not have been included in the cost analysis for the wet scrubber due to North Carolina's Sales and Use Tax Exemption for pollution abatement equipment (for air or stream) for manufacturing.
EPA disagrees with the contention that North Carolina increased the quoted amounts for the freight charge and construction management without explanation. As explained in appendix I of the Haze Plan, North Carolina's approval of Domtar's decision to use the CCM's methodology, instead of the vendor quote for the calculation of the freight cost, is reasonable because the quote was not detailed and was an estimate that did not consider the exact physical specifications and parameters of the plant. Furthermore, EPA disagrees that the construction cost was double-counted in the overall calculated $/ton based on EPA's review of Domtar's FFA calculations because they are using the $344,196 cost, as calculated using the methodologies from the CCM, instead of the $125,000 vendor quote.
EPA also disagrees that a $3,000,000 new induced fan was included in the FFA without any documentation or explanation. In section 7.8.1.2 of the Haze Plan, North Carolina notes that an additional fan power would be required to overcome the additional pressure drop through the wet scrubber. Specifically, in appendix I, North Carolina notes that Domtar monitored the existing fan at the facility during startup and commissioning of the new electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and found it to be sufficient to accommodate the ESP but without excess capacity. Therefore, a new induction fan is needed to operate a wet scrubber as well as the ESP and Domtar notes that the $3,000,000 was a quote that it had received for a new induction fan. EPA notes that North Carolina has included appropriate justification for the need for a new induction fan in appendix G-2 and appendix I of the Haze Plan and also finds that the $3,000,000 cost estimate was developed using reasonable cost assumptions and with adequate justification.
EPA also disagrees with the Conservation Groups' assertion that North Carolina relied on visibility considerations to reject the wet scrubber at HFB2. This is clear from statements in the Haze Plan and the NPRM. The Haze Plan states that North Carolina “evaluated the SO
EPA also disagrees that North Carolina failed to respond to the comments regarding a NO
The Conservation Groups contend that the State did not analyze lowering the SO
The sequencing of the development of the RPGs is inconsequential here because EPA has determined that the State's LTS is deficient. Therefore, because the Haze Plan does not include an approvable LTS, and compliance with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) is dependent on compliance with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), EPA is disapproving the RPGs, and the State should re-evaluate them as part of its potential SIP revision.
The Conservation Groups maintain that the VISTAS modeling was flawed and the source selection process was unreasonable, both of which were relied on by North Carolina to identify sources from other states that contribute to visibility impairment in its five Class I areas. They cite NPCA's analysis using the 2020 NEI and the 2023 Clean Air Markets Program Data (CAMPD) to show that there are 169 sources with Q/d greater than or equal to five, spanning 19 different states, that likely contribute to visibility impairment at North Carolina's Class I areas. They note that North Carolina did not request consultation with some of the states or regarding some sources that were identified by the NPCA, including consulting with Kentucky on Ghent Station that they contend is likely contributing to visibility impairment at Great Smoky Mountains with a Q/d of 40.36, and Louisiana, which has nine sources that they contend likely contribute to visibility impairment in North Carolina's Class I areas.
Regarding the adequacy of documentation of consultations, the Conservation Groups point to North Carolina's statement in its SIP revision that appendix F-1 contains the consultation letters from North Carolina to each VISTAS state, along with the
Next, the Conservation Groups assert that North Carolina “effectively conducted an `agree to do nothing' consultation process,” which violates the CAA and RHR requirement to engage in substantive consultation to develop coordinated strategies that reduce emissions with other states in order to make reasonable progress during the second planning period. They note that only one (Eastman Chemical Company in Tennessee) out of the 16 sources that the State requested consultation was required to install new emission controls. The Conservation Groups argue that North Carolina acquiesced to other states' determinations for their respective sources. For example, they state that based on the VISTAS modeling and source selection process North Carolina relied on, the General James M. Gavin Power Plant (Gavin Plant) in Ohio is the biggest contributor to visibility impairment in Great Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer, and Shining Rock, the second biggest contributor at Linville Gorge, and the fourth biggest contributor at Swanquarter. Nonetheless, they state that North Carolina decided it was satisfied with Ohio's determination that the Gavin Plant would not be required to install new emission controls.
EPA disagrees with the contention that EPA's review of North Carolina's interstate consultation process was a box checking exercise. EPA independently reviewed all of the consultation documentation provided by North Carolina within its Haze Plan. EPA also disagrees with the comment that North Carolina conducted a “do-nothing” approach to consultation, which violates CAA and RHR requirements to engage in substantive consultation to develop “coordinated emission reduction strategies” with other states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) requires a state to consult with those states that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I area. The State appears to have reasonably complied with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) by consulting with 10 other states and requesting FFAs for 16 facilities located within those states with visibility impacts to North Carolina's Class I areas exceeding the State's sulfate PSAT threshold at one or more of North Carolina's Class I areas.
Moreover, EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' contention that North Carolina did not adequately document its consultation process within its Haze Plan. Although the RHR requires a state to demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures agreed to during interstate consultations or a regional planning process, or measures that will provide equivalent visibility improvement, and to describe any actions taken in the event states disagree with one another on the emission reduction measures necessary to achieve reasonable progress in Class I areas, the RHR does not prescribe a specific type of documentation to demonstrate that the interstate consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) have been met. North Carolina documented its correspondence in appendix F-1 with the states listed in table 10-2 and summarized responses from those states in section 10.1.1 of the Haze Plan. Therefore, it appears that the State reasonably satisfied the RHR's documentation requirements. However, the interstate consultation requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) is a part of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), which is subject to the partial disapproval. To the extent that the Domtar facility contributes to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas, EPA recognizes that the State (or EPA in the case of an eventual FIP), may need to reconsider the interstate consultation element under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii). To the extent that the Conservation Groups have concerns about facilities outside of North Carolina, including the Gavin Plant in Ohio and Ghent Station in Kentucky, any public comments related to out-of-state sources should be provided during the public comment periods regarding those states' haze plans. North Carolina lacks authority to regulate these out-of-state sources, and therefore, EPA cannot require other states to implement control measures through action on North Carolina's Haze Plan.
The Conservation Groups argue that North Carolina treated the FLM consultation process as a “box checking exercise” by providing terse and inadequate responses to FLMs' recommendations. The Conservation Groups contend that North Carolina did not incorporate FLM suggestions that North Carolina should conduct FFAs of NO
The Conservation Groups contend that since North Carolina's source selection, source-specific analyses, LTS, and RPGs violate the CAA and RHR, the State's FLM consultations were based on a SIP revision that did not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements. They argue that EPA must issue a FIP that corrects the errors in the SIP revision and consult with the FLMs anew, meaningfully considering, incorporating, and responding to FLM recommendations.
North Carolina appears to have reasonably complied with this requirement by documenting how it addressed the FLMs' comments contained in appendix H and appendix I in both section 10.4 of the Haze Plan and in section 3.2 of appendix I of its Haze Plan.
EPA recognizes that North Carolina appears to have reasonably followed all of processes required for FLM consultation consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(i). However, EPA is disapproving North Carolina's FLM consultation under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) through (4) because compliance with that requirement is dependent on fulfilling the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) (LTS). For reasons discussed elsewhere in this notice, EPA is disapproving the portions of the Haze Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3). When EPA disapproves an LTS, the state (in the case of a SIP revision) or EPA (in the case of a FIP) must redevelop an LTS that complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements and provide meaningful consultation on the substance of the LTS created to replace the substantively disapproved one. Even though it appears North Carolina reasonably consulted with the FLMs to develop the LTS, because the LTS is disapproved, the consultation component must also be disapproved. Therefore, the State (for a SIP revision) or EPA (for a FIP) must again consult with the FLMs on a revised LTS in order to develop an approvable LTS.
Regarding the merits of the FLM comments summarized by the Conservation Groups and repeated by the NPS in its comments on this rulemaking,
The Conservation Groups argue that EPA's proposal fails to recognize the unreasonable approach that the State used to identify the geographic areas for consideration in the EJScreen Reports, an approach they describe as unique, and that they are not aware of any other state that employed this approach. They also assert that EPA's final action must provide clarification to the states that impacts local to the sources should be considered because North Carolina's analysis failed to consider the impacts of SO
The Conservation Groups state that the pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas can also cause significant public health impacts in the area surrounding the source, particularly communities of color and low-income communities. They argue that EPA's final action should consider and independently analyze the impacts the sources have on communities across the State, particularly in communities that are disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution and explain how a strong regional haze plan will address those adverse impacts.
Based on the Executive Orders (E.O.s) in place since 1994, they maintain that EPA is required to incorporate EJ as “part of its mission by identifying and addressing . . . disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its program, policies, and activities,” which they argue to be applicable to regional haze SIP actions' impacts on minority populations and low-income
The Conservation Groups maintain that EPA has the resources, including EJScreen, to provide a robust analysis of the EJ impacts of North Carolina's SIP revision. Using the EJScreen toolkit, their analysis shows five facilities (DEC—Belews Creek; DEC—Cliffside, DEC—Marshall, Domtar, and PCS) are surrounded by communities that have EJ indicators in the high percentiles.
In this instance, North Carolina elected to consider EJ under the reasonable progress factors in section 10.6 and appendix F-5 of the Haze Plan. The State ran EJScreen for four of its five Class I areas (excluding the Great Smoky Mountains due to its size), and based on the results of the EJScreen, it outlined a five-step outreach plan in section 10.6 to ensure the opportunity for meaningful community involvement during the state-level comment period for the Haze Plan. In appendix I of the Haze Plan, in response to an EJ comment received during the public comment period, the State notes that EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo encourages states to consider EJ and encourages states to consider whether there may be equity and EJ impacts when developing their regional haze strategies for the second planning period while noting that states have discretion to consider EJ in determining the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress and formulating LTS, as long as such consideration is reasonable and not contrary to the regional haze requirements. North Carolina explains in its response that at the time of the issuance of the memo, the State had mostly completed the proposed plan for public comment which was issued on August 30, 2021. The response also states that North Carolina's EJ analysis and additional outreach was an adequate response given the short amount of time between when EPA issued its July 8, 2021, guidance and when regional haze SIPs were due to EPA on July 31, 2021.
As discussed above, the CAA and RHR neither prohibit nor require an evaluation of EJ with a regional haze SIP. EPA has evaluated North Carolina's SIP submission against the statutory and regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it satisfies those minimum requirements. For these reasons, the State is not required to address the Conservation Groups' alleged EJ inadequacies in its SIP revision, and EPA is not required to conduct an independent EJ analysis.
NPS also argues that FGD installed after 2007 should meet a control effectiveness of 95 percent or higher, pointing to a “caveat” in the 2019 Guidance regarding the 90 percent control efficiency “off-ramp” that EPA cites in its proposal to approve. This “caveat” states that EPA expects any FGD system installed to meet CAA requirements since 2007 would have an effectiveness of 95 percent or higher. NPS also points to EPA's January 4, 2017, Texas Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) FIP in which it contends that EPA set a 95 percent SO
EPA clarifies that North Carolina and EPA are not relying on section 2.3 (“Sources that are Not Selected Based on Existing Effective Controls”) of the 2021 Clarifications Memo and 2019 Guidance (pp. 22-25) for DEC—Belews Creek, DEC—Cliffside, DEC—Marshall, DEP—Mayo, or DEP—Roxboro. Section 2.3 of the 2021 Memo is applicable to sources that met the source selection criteria set by the State under the RHR and, instead of a FFA, the State provided a showing that the source has existing, effective controls such that a FFA is unlikely to result in new additional controls. None of these five Duke Energy EGUs met North Carolina's source selection criteria for a FFA (
Regarding EPA's potential overestimate of scrubber efficiency, EPA agrees that using the AP-42 equation assumption for bituminous coal (uncontrolled) combustion would slightly reduce the calculated scrubber efficiencies.
Regarding NPS' statement that FGDs installed after 2007 should meet a control effectiveness of 95 percent or higher,
Specifically, they contend that the State's plan relied on a flawed modeling system prepared by VISTAS. They contend that VISTAS modeling used decade-old data, does not accurately represent nor include NO
The Organizations also contend that North Carolina used unreasonably high source selection thresholds that excluded Duke Energy's coal-fired power plants from a full review for control analyses or requirements. The Organizations state that these Duke facilities are some of the biggest haze polluters in the State.
The Organizations state that EPA shirked its duty to review North
The Organizations' comment regarding rulemaking consistency is unclear with respect to the specific alleged inconsistencies between this action and the cited proposed actions. Therefore, EPA is unable to respond to this comment other than to note that EPA is now shifting from its initial proposal of a partial approval and partial conditional approval to a partial approval and partial disapproval.
The Commenter asserts that the Haze Plan misses opportunities to reduce emissions and many industrial pollution sources will remain unchecked, and that it will continue to allow up to 53,000 tons of haze-causing pollutants (SO
The Commenter refers to EPA's proposed approval as a “rubber-stamp” of North Carolina's “do-nothing regional haze plan.” The Commenter maintains that North Carolina's plan is “weak” because it is based on flawed modeling from VISTAS and that EPA “shirked its duty” to review the State's source-specific FFAs; “incorrectly” allowed the State to exclude NO
As explained in
DAQ describes North Carolina's EJ Program for regional haze in section 10.6 of the 2022 Plan which includes outreach plans to provide an opportunity for meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income during the comment period of this regional haze plan for North Carolina. DAQ ran EJScreen,
EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part North Carolina's April 4, 2022, SIP submission addressing the regional haze requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). Specifically, EPA is approving the portions of the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), (f)(4) through (6), and (g)(1) through (5).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities because it merely partially approves and partially disapproves a SIP submission as meeting or not meeting Federal requirements, respectively.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely partially approves and partially disapproves a SIP submission as meeting or not meeting Federal requirements, respectively. Furthermore, EPA's Policy on Children's Health does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with EJ concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as among other things, the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment.
DAQ evaluated EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal even though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation. EPA's evaluation of DAQ's EJ considerations are described above in the section titled, “EJ Considerations.” 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. EPA is finalizing action under the CAA on bases independent of North Carolina's evaluation of EJ. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based that is inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving Wisconsin's additions and amendments to chapters NR 400, NR 428, and NR 484 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code (Wis. Adm. Code). These changes clarify existing requirements and ensure clear and consistent implementation of Wisconsin's control requirements for emissions of nitrogen oxide (NO
This final rule is effective on December 23, 2024.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2024-0184. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Katie Mullen, Air and Radiation Division (AR 18J), Air and Radiation Division (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-3490,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Wisconsin's April 10, 2024, submittal requested that EPA approve revisions to NO
EPA is approving the revisions in NR 400, 428, and 484 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, which simply clarify and streamline Wisconsin's existing NO
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin Regulations described in section I of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines EJ as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The WDNR did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(151) On April 10, 2024, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources submitted revised rules to clarify existing requirements and ensure clear and consistent implementation of Wisconsin's control requirements for emissions of nitrogen oxide (NO
(i)
(A) NR 400.03(4)(mf), as published in the Wisconsin Register March 2024 No. 819, effective April 1, 2024.
(B) NR 428.02(7i), NR 428.02(7p), NR 428.02(7u), NR 428.02(7w), NR 428.04(2)(i), NR 428.04(4)(c), NR 428.05(2)(b), NR 428.05(2)(f), NR 428.05(3)(f), NR 428.05(5)(c), NR 428.055, NR 428.07(1)(a)2, NR 428.08(2)(e)title, NR 428.08(2)(f)title, NR 428.08(2)(g), NR 428.08(3), NR 428.21(3)(d), NR 428.22(1) introductory text, NR 428.22(3), and NR 428.24(1)(c), as published in the Wisconsin Register March 2024 No. 819, effective April 1, 2024.
(C) NR 484.04 Table 2 Row (15m), as published in the Wisconsin Register March 2024 No. 819, effective April 1, 2024.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Direct final rule.
On April 10, 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a final rule that aims to reduce the waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, and leaks during oil and gas production activities on Federal and Indian leases. This direct final rule corrects technical errors in that final rule, including revisions to equations for consistency with, or to better reflect, the regulatory text. It separately lists definitions of the variables for those equations for increased clarity. It also corrects typographical errors and makes minor re-arrangements of provisions for better clarity.
This direct final rule is effective on December 23, 2024, without further notice, unless the BLM receives significant adverse comment by December 23, 2024. If the BLM receives a significant adverse comment that leads it to conclude that the rule is controversial, the BLM will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
John Ajak, Acting Division Chief, Division of Fluid Minerals at 505-549-9654 or
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
For a short, plain language summary of the direct final rule, please see the direct final rule summary document in docket BLM-2024-0001 on
This direct final rule corrects technical errors in 43 CFR subpart 3179 of the final rule that published in the
API 22.3 is referenced in the amendatory text of this document and was previously approved for § 3179.71.
The BLM is publishing corrections to the Waste Prevention rule as a direct final rule. This rule merely corrects inadvertent errors that would otherwise cause unnecessary confusion for the operators attempting to comply with the reporting requirements of the Waste Prevention rule, but does not impose new requirements. None of the changes are inconsistent with the BLM's explanation of the Waste Prevention rule in its preamble. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that it is appropriate for this rule to go into effect at the close of a 30-day comment period unless BLM receives a significant adverse comment.
A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) why the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without additional changes. After the 30-day comment period closes, the BLM will assess whether any of the comments received qualify as a significant adverse comment. If the BLM finds that there is a significant adverse comment, then it will withdraw this direct final rule. If no such comment is received, this direct final rule will become effective on December 23, 2024, without further BLM action. The BLM will not consider a comment recommending an addition to the rule to be significant or adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without additional change. Aside from the technical corrections described in this direct final rule, this rule does not affect the Waste Prevention rule.
The BLM is making technical corrections to Equations 2 and 3 in § 3179.71, as further discussed below. In addition, the BLM is restyling Equation 1 by moving the value to be determined from the right side of the equal sign to the left, in keeping with mathematical convention. In addition, for clarity, the rule as now corrected separately lists the variable definitions for each equation (in the final rule, the variable definitions for Equations 1 and 2 were combined in a single list). This rule also adds clarifying language in § 3179.71(b) and (g) and removes unintended and unworkable references to low-pressure flare volumes, discussed below, and
In response to public comment on the proposed rule and based on further consideration, the BLM included equations in § 3179.71(g) and (h) of the final Waste Prevention rule to guide operators in reporting estimated volumes of flared gas. The BLM included Equations 1 and 2 in paragraph (g) for operators to use in estimating the flared volumes for high-pressure flares measuring less than 1,050 Mcf per month. The BLM included Equation 3 in paragraph (h) to assist operators in allocating flared volumes when gas from multiple leases, unit participating areas (unit PAs), or communitization areas (CAs) is commingled and then measured at a single flare, as authorized in § 3179.71(a).
Following publication of the final rule, the BLM received questions from several industry groups. One group observed that Equation 2 does not account for the on-lease use of gas when accounting for the disposition of the total gas produced, contrary to the Waste Prevention rule preamble acknowledgment that “[t]he BLM authorizes royalty-free use of lease production for operations and production purposes,
Equation 3 allocates total flared volume from a commingled high-pressure flare to individual leases, unit PAs, or CAs that send gas to a common flare. The Waste Prevention rule provided in § 3179(h) that the allocation is to be “based on the oil production while flaring.” Because of an error in Equation 3, however, that equation uses the volume of oil
In the Waste Prevention rule, § 3179.71(g) would apply when, “the flared volume for a high-pressure flare is less than or equal to 1,050 Mcf per month,” instead of simply “less than,” as the BLM intended and as reflected in Table 1 to § 3179.71(f). The BLM is correcting this typographical error by removing the reference to “or equal to” in § 3179.71(g).
In § 3179.71(g) of the Waste Prevention rule, the BLM required estimation of low-pressure flare volumes based on Equations 1 and 2. Industry representatives, however, correctly pointed out that Equations 1 and 2 do not work for low-pressure flare volumes. The inclusion of “and for low-pressure flares” in the first sentence of § 3179.71(g) was therefore a mistake and would require operators to use inappropriate formulas to estimate low-pressure flare volumes. The preamble to the Waste Prevention rule discussing § 3179.71 did not mention calculating low-pressure flare volumes, see 89 FR 25413 through 25415, and neither did the proposed rule. Generally, low-pressure flares combust tank vapors that lack sufficient pressure to enter the sales line, so, under § 3179.41(b)(7), normal operating losses from oil storage tanks are unavoidable losses and thus are not subject to royalty obligations. Because low-pressure flare volumes are also normally small in volume, and difficult to measure, there are several industry-accepted methods operators may use in estimating and reporting low-pressure flare volumes on the OGOR. For these reasons, this rule clarifies that the requirements in § 3179.71(g) apply to high-pressure flares, and the first sentence now states, “For high-pressure flares with volumes less than 1,050 Mcf per month, the flared volume may be estimated, or measured.”
The BLM is also correcting a typographical error in § 3179.71(b). That section—which currently requires operators to “measure flared gas for high-pressure flares for volumes greater than 1,050 Mcf per month above the averaging period”—inadvertently omitted the words “or equal to” after “greater.” The correct phrasing appears in Table 1 to § 3179.71(f) and is referenced twice in the final rule's preamble.
This direct final rule also corrects “above the averaging period” in § 3179.71(b) to read “over the averaging period,” as BLM intended. There is no substantive difference, but “over” is a more standard expression (as in the above-quoted Waste Prevention rule preamble) and should prevent any confusion.
There are two other inadvertent errors in § 3179.71(b). The Waste Prevention rule provided that “operators may estimate the volume flared, as described in paragraph (h) of this section.” Paragraph (h), however, applies to combusting gas that is combined across multiple units, unit PAs, or CAs. Paragraph (h) and its Equation 3 make no sense for operators who are not combining gas for flaring. The intended reference in paragraph (b) was to paragraph (g), and this direct final rule corrects that typographical error.
A second inadvertent error in § 3179.71(b) is that it encourages operators to estimate volumes of low-pressure flaring, as provided in paragraph (g). For the reasons discussed above, paragraph (g) and its Equations 1 and 2 are not appropriate or intended for use in estimating low-pressure flare volumes. Accordingly, the BLM is removing the inadvertent language. The corrected second sentence in § 3179(b) now states, “For high-pressure flares measuring less than 1,050 Mcf per month over the averaging period, operators may estimate the volume flared, as described in paragraph (g) of this section,”
In this direct final rule, the BLM also adds the full wording for the acronym AVO, which stands for Audio-Visual-Olfactory, in § 3179.100(b)(2)(i). The AVO acronym appears in the List of Acronyms (81 FR 25328) in the Waste Prevention rule preamble. However, the AVO acronym explanation does not appear within the regulatory text. For clarity, this final rule will add the AVO acronym explanation to § 3179.100(b)(2)(i) to read, “Well pads with only wellheads and no production equipment or storage must include quarterly Audio-Visual-Olfactory (AVO) inspections for leak detection.” This change is not substantive and only provides further clarity for a reader who does not have access to the preamble with its List of Acronyms.
E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O.13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The BLM developed this rule in a manner consistent with those requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule.
This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This direct final rule only corrects errors and provides consistency and clarity to the April 10 rule. The changes neither create new requirements nor eliminate substantive requirements from the Waste Prevention rule. Therefore, the regulatory impacts are unchanged from those analyzed for the Waste Prevention rule, and there is no need for a separate regulatory impact analysis for this rule.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely corrects inadvertent errors in the Waste Prevention rule and other potential sources of confusion. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under E.O. 12630. The rule primarily corrects inadvertent errors and sources of confusion in the Waste Prevention rule without substantive change; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria of section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This direct final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Among other things, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The BLM evaluated this direct final rule under E.O. 13175 and the Department's and the BLM's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the BLM's regulation to correct inadvertent errors and other potential sources of confusion.
This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the April 10 rule and assigned OMB control number 1004-0211. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the BLM is only clarifying, not increasing, the information collection requirements.
This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flaring, Immediate assessments, Incorporation by reference,
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends 43 CFR part 3170 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 396d and 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189, 306, 359, and 1751; and 43 U.S.C. 1732(b), 1733, and 1740.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), this subpart applies to:
(a) The operator may commingle flared gas from more than one lease, unit PA, or CA to a common high-pressure flare without BLM approval, subject to the allocation requirement in paragraph (h). The site facility diagram required under § 3173.11 must indicate that the high-pressure flare is a common, commingled flare and list the leases, unit PAs, or CAs contributing gas to the common flare.
(b) The operator must measure flared gas for high-pressure flares for volumes greater than or equal to 1,050 Mcf per month over the averaging period. For high-pressure flares measuring less than 1,050 Mcf per month over the averaging period, operators may estimate the volume flared, as described in paragraph (g) of this section.
(c) High-pressure flares requiring measurement must use either orifice plates and orifice meter tubes, or ultrasonic meters. High-pressure flare measurement systems must meet the following requirements:
(1) Orifice metering systems must comply with the low-volume measurement requirements in § 3175.80, low-volume electronic gas measurement requirements in § 3175.100, and the low-volume gas sampling and analysis requirements in § 3175.110 with the gas sampling location requirements provided in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
(2) Ultrasonic metering systems must comply with the following requirements:
(i) Each ultrasonic meter make and model must be tested for flare use. Flare gas meter testing must be conducted and reported pursuant to API 22.3 (incorporated by reference, see § 3179.30) and results must be made available to the AO upon request.
(ii) Ultrasonic meters must be installed and operated for flare use according to the manufacturer's specifications and those specifications must be provided to the AO upon request.
(iii) Ultrasonic metering systems must comply with the low-volume electronic gas measurement requirements in § 3175.100, and the low-volume gas sampling analysis requirements in § 3175.110, except for the gas sampling requirements in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
(3) Operators must evaluate the production facility to determine which type of flare measurement is safe for the facility.
(d) The gas sample must be taken from one of the following locations when the high-pressure flare is measuring a single lease, unit PA, or CA:
(1) At the flare meter;
(2) At the gas FMP, if there is a gas FMP at the well site and the gas composition is the same as that of the flare-meter gas; or
(3) At another location approved by the AO with a Sundry Notice submission.
(e) The gas sample must be taken from one of the following locations for a common high-pressure flare that measures more than one lease, unit PA, or CA;
(1) At the flare meter; or
(2) At another location approved by the AO with a Sundry Notice submission.
(f) Appropriate meters must be installed at all high-pressure flares pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, and gas sampling must be taken from the appropriate location pursuant to paragraph (d) or (e) of this section according to the following phase-in timeline:
(g) For high-pressure flares with volumes less than 1,050 Mcf per month, the flared volume may be estimated, or measured. Estimated flared gas volumes must be based on production reported on the ONRR OGORs over the previous 6 months and calculated as follows:
(h) If a flare is combusting gas that is combined across multiple leases, unit PAs, or CAs, the operator may measure the gas at a single point at the flare and allocate flared volumes based on the oil production while flaring from each lease, unit PA, or CA as follows:
(i) Measurement points for flared volumes are not FMPs for the purposes of subpart 3175.
(a) Pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the operator must maintain a BLM administrative statewide LDAR program designed to prevent the waste of Federal or Indian gas.
(b) Operators must submit a statewide LDAR program to the BLM state office with jurisdiction over the production for review. The LDAR program must cover operations and production equipment located on a Federal or Indian oil and gas lease and not operations and production equipment located on State or private tracts, even though those tracts are committed to a federally approved unit PA or CA. When there is a change of operator, the new operator must update the LDAR program on the annual update and revision timeline. Operators must submit the LDAR program in writing for review until such time as the BLM's electronic filing system is capable of receiving LDAR program submissions. At minimum, the LDAR program must contain the following information, as applicable:
(1) Identification of the leases, unit PAs, CAs by geographic State for all States within BLM's administrative State boundaries to which the LDAR program applies; and
(2) Identification of the method and frequency of leak detection inspection used at the lease, unit PA, or CA. Acceptable methods, as well as other methods approved by the BLM, and frequency include the following:
(i) Well pads with only wellheads and no production equipment or storage must include quarterly Audio-Visual-Olfactory (AVO) inspections for leak detection;
(ii) Well pads with any production and processing equipment and oil storage must include AVO inspections every other month and quarterly optical gas imaging for leak detection; and
(iii) Other leak detection inspection methods and frequency acceptable to the BLM (
(3) Identification of the operator's recordkeeping process for leak detection and repair pursuant to § 3179.102.
(c) The BLM will review the operator's LDAR program and notify the operator if the BLM deems the program to be inadequate. The notification will explain the basis for the BLM's determination, identify the plan's inadequacies, describe any additional measures that could address the inadequacies, and provide a reasonable time frame in which the operator must submit a revised LDAR program to the BLM for review.
(d) For leases in effect on June 10, 2024, the operator must submit a statewide LDAR program to the state office no later than December 10, 2025.
(e) Operators must review and update submitted LDAR programs on an annual basis in the month in which the operator submitted the first LDAR program to ensure the identified leases, unit PAs, and CAs, leak detection methods, and frequency of inspections are current. If the operator's LDAR program requires no changes, then the operator must notify the BLM state office that the LDAR program submitted and reviewed by the BLM remains in effect. Any updates to the LDAR program must be submitted in writing to the BLM state office for review until such time as the BLM's electronic system is capable of receiving the annual LDAR updates.
The action taken herein is pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.
In Rule Document 2024-25912, appearing on pages 88890 through 88905, in the issue of Tuesday, November 12, 2024, make the following correction:
On page 88890, in the first column, in the
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notification of public meetings.
FSIS is hosting two virtual public meetings to give stakeholders an opportunity to present their views on and discuss the
The virtual public meetings will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 2024, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and Thursday, December 5, 2024, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. EST.
The meetings will be virtual and will be viewed via the Teams link provided by email when you register for the meetings. Attendees must be pre-registered for the meetings. See the pre-registration instructions under “Registration and Meeting Materials.”
Written comments on the
•
•
•
Julie Lastra, Director Internal Affairs by telephone at (202) 731-4584 or email at
FSIS is the public health agency in USDA whose mission is to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled and packaged. In October 2022, FSIS published a
Component Two of the proposal would revise the regulations in 9 CFR 381.65(g) and (h) that require that all poultry slaughter establishments develop, implement, and maintain written procedures to prevent contamination by enteric pathogens throughout the entire slaughter and dressing operation and maintain records documenting those procedures. FSIS is proposing to amend these regulations to establish new requirements pertaining to how establishments monitor and document whether their processes for preventing microbial contamination are in control. The proposed revisions are intended to clarify existing regulatory requirements related to process control monitoring in 9 CFR 381.65(g) and (h). Under this proposal, establishments would be required to incorporate statistical process control (SPC) monitoring principles into their microbial monitoring programs (MMPs).
Component Three of the proposed Framework would establish final product standards that would define whether certain raw poultry products contaminated with a certain
In the proposal, FSIS requested comments on various aspects of all three Components in the proposed
FSIS is announcing that it will hold two virtual public meetings during the open comment period. The first meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 2024, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. EST, and will focus on the final product standards under Component Three. The second will be held on Thursday, December 5, 2024, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. EST, and will focus on the enhanced process control monitoring provisions under Component Two and any additional issues raised by stakeholders on the proposed Framework. The purpose of the meetings is to give stakeholders an opportunity to present their views on certain aspects of the proposed
There is no fee to register for the meetings, but pre-registration is mandatory for participants attending. All attendees must register online by visiting the event page for the December 3, 2024 meeting at:
As soon as the meeting transcripts are available, they will be accessible on the FSIS website for the December 3, 2024 meeting at:
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027,
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On October 31, 2024, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on the part 53 proposed rulemaking, which would revise the NRC's regulations by adding a risk-informed, performance-based, and technology-inclusive regulatory framework for commercial nuclear plants in response to the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA). The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on December 30, 2024. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments and for the NRC staff to engage with stakeholders on the proposed rule language.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on October 31, 2024 (89 FR 86918), is extended. Comments should be filed no later than February 28, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
•
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
Robert Beall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3874; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0062 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On October 31, 2024, the NRC solicited comments on the “Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors” proposed rule (also known as “part 53”). This proposed rule responds to NEIMA by creating an alternative regulatory framework for licensing future commercial nuclear plants. The new alternative requirements and implementing guidance would adopt technology-inclusive approaches and use risk-informed and performance-based techniques to ensure an equivalent level of safety to that of operating commercial nuclear plants while providing flexibility for licensing and regulating a variety of technologies and designs for commercial nuclear reactors. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on December 30, 2024. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period on this document until February 28, 2025, to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments and for the NRC staff to engage with stakeholders on the proposed rule language.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes, and Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of jammed elevators during takeoff. This proposed AD would require revising the “Certificate Limitations” section of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to include a procedure to confirm elevator surfaces are not jammed in the trailing edge down (TED) position. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 6, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Katherine Venegas, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 562-627-5353; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Katherine Venegas, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 562-627-5353; email:
The FAA has received a report indicating that both the left and right elevator were jammed during takeoff resulting in a runway excursion. Elevator surface jamming in the TED direction caused by high-speed wind events can occur while the airplane is parked. This condition may not be detected by feel during preflight control column movement prior to takeoff. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition, which if not addressed, could result in a runway excursion during a rejected takeoff.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revising the “Certificate Limitations” section of the existing AFM to include a procedure to confirm elevator surfaces are not jammed in the TED position.
Section 91.9 (14 CFR 91.9) prohibits any person from operating a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the AFM. FAA regulations also require operators to furnish pilots with any changes to the AFM (14 CFR 121.137) and pilots in command to be familiar with the AFM (14 CFR 91.505).
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. Boeing is developing a design change to address the unsafe condition. If final action is
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 104 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by January 6, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes.
(2) Model MD-88 airplanes.
(3) Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes.
(4) Model DC-9-21 airplanes.
(5) Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B) airplanes.
(6) Model DC-9-41 airplanes.
(7) Model DC-9-51 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of jammed elevators during takeoff. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition, which if not addressed, could result in a runway excursion during a rejected takeoff.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the “Certificate Limitations” section of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to include the information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD into the AFM.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Katherine Venegas, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 562-627-5353; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by possible horizontal stabilizer pivot pin lockring, outer pivot pin, and outboard spacer misalignment at final assembly. This proposed AD would require inspection of the left-side and right-side horizontal stabilizer pivot pin assemblies for misalignment and incorrect gapping, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 6, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
The FAA has received a report indicating possible horizontal stabilizer pivot pin lockring, outer pivot pin, and outboard spacer misalignment at final assembly. One operator further reported a left side pivot assembly that did not have a visible gap between the outboard nut and trap fitting. A misaligned pivot
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550013-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 30, 2024. This material specifies procedures for a detailed inspection of the left-side and right-side horizontal stabilizer pivot pin assemblies for misalignment and incorrect gapping and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacement of the left or right horizontal stabilizer pivot pin assembly if any misalignment or incorrect gapping is found.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 145 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by January 6, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550013-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 30, 2024.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by possible misalignment, at final assembly, of the horizontal stabilizer pivot pin lockring, outer pivot pin, and outboard spacer. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a pivot pin outboard spacer that is not set correctly flush against the horizontal stabilizer pivot bearing and outboard washer, caused by a misaligned pivot pin lockring. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in decreased lateral load capacity, which could cause the loss of pivot pin retention parts and lead to loss of the horizontal stabilizer and loss of continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550013-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 30, 2024, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550013-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 30, 2024.
Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550013-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 30, 2024, refers to the Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550013-00 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550013-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 30, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Issued on November 12, 2024.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent Postal Service filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports. This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On November 13, 2024, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
The Postal Service notes that MODS workhours “have long been used both to develop labor costs by cost pool and in labor productivity statistics for mail processing plants,” but operation-level workhour data have not been used to develop costs for non-MODS operations.
The Postal Service asserts that the eFlash system can be used as a source of manual processing volumes for non-MODS operations and covers letters, flats, and parcels distribution.
The Postal Service explains that, to determine whether eFlash workhours could be used in productivity calculations, it investigated “both the extent to which the eFlash workhours covered the corresponding mail processing cost pools and the extent to which the eFlash workhours included activities other than the expected shape-related processing work.”
The Postal Service maintains that the proposed changes are an improvement to the currently used productivity data.
The Postal Service then explains that the magnitude of the effect of the productivity change will depend upon the extent to which various categories of mail require manual processing in Function 4 operations.
The Postal Service presents the impact of Function 4 letter productivity on the letter cost model results in USPS-FY23-10 (table 7), the impact of Function 4 flat productivity on the First-Class and USPS Marketing Mail flat cost model in USPS-FY23-11 (table 8), and the impact of Function 4 flat productivity on the piece costs in the Periodicals model in USPS-FY23-11 (table 9).
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2025-4 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2025-4 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service to Initiate a Proceeding to Change Analytical Principles and Notice of Filing Non-Public Materials, filed November 13, 2024.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due December 10, 2024.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Nikki Brendemuehl to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for the publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice; Correction.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is correcting a notice that published in the
For information on the user fee activities covered by this notice, contact Ms. Lisa Slimmer, User Fee Financial Team Manager, Veterinary Services Money Management, 920 Main Campus Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 414-7205.
On November 8, 2024, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published a notice (89 FR 88697-88712) that is open for comment until December 9, 2024, and announced proposed adjusted user fee rates for the costs of providing certain goods and services, including veterinary diagnostic goods and services and veterinary services for imports and exports of live animals and animal products. The notice erroneously omitted a proposed adjusted fee for “Bacterial disease CF antigens, all other” in table 21. This notice corrects the inadvertent omission and updates table 21.
In FR Doc. 2024-25826, appearing at 89 FR 88697-88712 in the
On page 88709, table 21 is printed in its entirety with the addition, in alphabetical order, of a row for “Bacterial disease CF antigens, all other” to read as follows:
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Idaho State Office announces its intent to prepare an EIS for the North Cache Valley Project Watershed Plan (Watershed Plan), located within the North Cache Valley Watershed in Lewiston, Utah. The proposed Watershed Plan will examine alternative solutions to provide improved agricultural water management and to enhance recreational facilities. The project is being planned for areas within the watershed located in Franklin County, Idaho and Cache County, Utah. The project area is comprised of the irrigation service area within the watershed which fits into the watershed plan's primary purpose of Agricultural Water Management. The Project Area includes developed and undeveloped agricultural land and small farm communities. The primary purpose for this Watershed Plan is to provide more reliable management of agricultural water in the Project Area and to enhance existing recreational opportunities in the watershed. This Watershed Plan is needed to improve impaired drainage infrastructure; provide an efficient and reliable irrigation water supply; improve water management and measurement; reduce seepage loss in existing conveyance systems; and to expand the limited recreational opportunities in the watershed. NRCS is requesting comments to identify significant issues, potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the proposed action from all interested individuals, Federal and State agencies, and Tribes.
We will consider comments that we receive by December 23, 2024. We will consider comments received after close of the comment period to the extent possible.
We invite you to submit comments in response to this notice. You may submit your comments through one of the methods below:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change and made publicly available on
Dan Murdock, telephone: (208) 685-6990; email:
Individuals who require alternative means for communication should contact the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone (TTY)) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any telephone).
The primary purposes for the Watershed Plan is to improve agricultural water management and recreation development in the Project Area. Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).
Franklin County, Idaho is the Sponsoring Local Organization for this project with Cub River Irrigation Company (CRIC) and Cache County, Utah as co-sponsors. The project is essential to improve agricultural water management and enhance recreational development in the watershed.
This action is needed to address drainage, water management, and recreation issues for the Project Area. This action is needed to better manage and remove drainage and flood flows in a timely manner; provide an efficient, reliable irrigation water supply; construct a sustainable distribution system; increase pumping efficiencies; and conserve water. Water conservation would be accomplished by reducing open channel inefficiencies, seepage losses, and evaporation.
Estimated Federal funds required for the construction of the proposed action may exceed $25 million and the proposed action will, therefore, require congressional approval per the 2018 Agriculture Appropriations Act amended funding threshold. In accordance with the regulation in 7 CFR 650.7(a)(2), an EIS is required for projects requiring congressional approval.
The EIS objective is to formulate and evaluate alternatives for the purposes of agricultural water management and public recreation in the Franklin County, Idaho Project Area. The EIS is expected to evaluate three alternatives:
The alternatives that may be considered for detailed analysis include:
•
•
•
As mentioned above, the estimated Federal contribution to construction cost will exceed $25 million.
The EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and NRCS regulations that implement NEPA in 7 CFR part 650.
Resource concerns for scoping were identified and categorized as relevant or not relevant to the proposed action. Franklin County, Idaho and NRCS evaluated the current conditions for resources in the Project Area including soil, water, air, plants, animals, and humans along with relevant resource concerns for each proposed solution. Environmental resources in the Project Area consist of the natural and human-made environment. Resource concerns to be identified and addressed in the Watershed Plan-EIS include: soils; prime and unique farmland; upland erosion; surface and groundwater quality and quantity; wetlands and Waters of the United States; floodplains; air quality; climate change; endangered and threatened plant and animal species; riparian areas; invasive species; fish and wildlife; migratory birds; cultural and historic resources; environmental justice; public health and safety; and transportation, among others.
The following permits and authorizations are anticipated to be required:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Draft EIS (DEIS) will be prepared and circulated for review and comment by agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and the public for 45 days as required by the regulations in 40 CFR 1503.1, 1502.20, 1506.11, and 1502.17, and 7 CFR 650.13. The DEIS is anticipated to be published in the
NRCS will decide whether to implement one of the action alternatives as evaluated in the EIS. A Record of Decision will be completed after the required 30-day waiting period and will be publicly available. The responsible Federal official and decision maker for NRCS is the Idaho NRCS State Conservationist. The Responsible Federal Official (RFO) and decision maker for NRCS is the Idaho State Conservationist.
A public scoping meeting was held on November 19, 2020. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who commented, were part of the public record. Scoping meeting presentation materials were available for review and comment for 30 days from November 19, 2020, through December 18, 2020.
Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies and representatives, and the public were invited to take part in the watershed plan scoping period. Franklin County, Idaho, and NRCS organized the public scoping meeting to provide an opportunity to review and evaluate the project alternatives, express concern, or support, and gain further information regarding the project. To determine the most viable alternatives for the EIS, Franklin County, Idaho, used input obtained during public scoping discussions to focus on relevant resource concerns and issues and eliminated those that were not relevant from further detailed study.
NRCS will coordinate the scoping process to correspond with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108) as allowed in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) and 800.8.
NRCS invites agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the North Cache Valley Watershed Plan-EIS to provide written comments concerning the scope of the analysis and identification of potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the Proposed Action.
The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist NRCS in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and NHPA.
NRCS will consult with Native American Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with the regulations in 36 CFR 800.2 and 800.3, Executive Order 13175, and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources and historic properties, will be given due consideration.
This document is published as specified by the NEPA regulations regarding publication of an NOI to issue an EIS (40 CFR 1501.9(d)). Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended and the Flood Control Act of 1944.
The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program as found in the Assistance Listing
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. This project is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and telephone) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any phone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual panel briefings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold three additional panel briefings via Zoom. The purpose of these briefings is to hear testimony on hate crimes nationally and in Indiana.
• PANEL V: Monday, November 18, 2024, from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. eastern time;
• PANEL VI: Tuesday, November 19, 2024, from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. eastern time;
• PANEL VII: Friday, November 22, 2024, from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. eastern time.
These briefings will be held via Zoom.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ivy Davis, Director of Eastern Regional Office and Designated Federal Officer, at
These Committee meetings are available to the public through the registration links above. Any interested members of the public may attend these meetings. Before adjourning each meeting, the Chair will recognize members of the public to make brief oral statements, as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at these meetings. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plans. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days after the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ivy Davis at
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after each meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Colombia was not sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.
Applicable November 22, 2024.
Kate Fracke, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3299.
On July 29, 2024, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the scope of the
The scope also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate.
The scope includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively.
The scope does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set
Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and, if included in a mixture or blend, 3824.99.9397 of the HTSUS. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.99.9397 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023:
There are no new calculations to disclose in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b) for these final results.
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 covered by this review. Because the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin or importer-specific assessment rates are zero in the final results of review, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
Commerce's “automatic assessment” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the mandatory respondent for which the company did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (
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
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the company identified above in the “Final Results of Review” section will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review (
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice 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)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain Malaysian exporters of certain quartz surface products (quartz surface products) continue to be ineligible to participate in the scope certification process established for the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty
Applicable November 22, 2024.
Ajay Menon, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0208.
Commerce published the
The products covered by the
All issues raised in interested parties' case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Commerce conducted these reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We determine that Bada Industries, Karina Stone, Unique Stone Sdn. Bhd. (Unique Stone), and Universal Quartz have not demonstrated that the quartz slab used to produce their Malaysian exports to the United States during the periods of review was sourced from a country other than China. As a result, we find that Bada Industries, Karina Stone, Unique Stone, and Universal Quartz continue to be ineligible to participate in the certification process for quartz surface products from Malaysia.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping and countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
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
Because Commerce continues to find that the Malaysian exporters subject to this review (
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, for the exporters subject to this review (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3).
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing the antidumping duty (AD) orders on aluminum lithographic printing plates (printing plates) from the People's Republic of China (China) and Japan and a countervailing duty (CVD) order on printing plates from China.
Applicable November 22, 2024.
Benito Ballesteros (AD China), Caroline Carroll (AD Japan), and Ajay Menon (CVD China), AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7435; (202) 482-4948, and (202) 482-0208, respectively.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on September 27, 2024, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) for printing plates from China and Japan,
On November 12, 2024, pursuant to sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of dumped imports of printing plates from China and Japan, and subsidized imports of printing plates from China, within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
The products covered by these orders are printing plates from China and Japan. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
On November 12, 2024, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of printing plates from China and Japan that are sold in the United States at LTFV.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise on all relevant entries of printing plates from China and Japan. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of printing plates entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 1, 2024, the date of publication of the
With respect to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of printing plates from China, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2024 (
Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures—AD” section of this notice, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of printing plates from China and Japan, in accordance with section 736 of the Act. These instructions suspending liquidations will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the tables below, adjusted by the relevant export subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that accounted for a significant proportion of exports of printing plates from China and Japan, Commerce extended the four-month period to no more than six months.
As stated above, based on the above-referenced affirmative final determination by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of printing plates from China,
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess, upon further instructions by Commerce, countervailing duties on all relevant entries of printing plates from China, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 1, 2024, the date of publication of the
With respect to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of printing plates from China, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of printing plates from China, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The estimated countervailing duty subsidy rates are as follows:
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of printing plates from China or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after June 29, 2024, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website at
In the
This notice constitutes the AD orders with respect to printing plates from China and Japan and the CVD order with respect to printing plates from China, pursuant to sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and CVD orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by these orders are aluminum lithographic printing plates. Aluminum lithographic printing plates consist of a flat substrate containing at least 90 percent aluminum. The aluminum-containing substrate is generally treated using a mechanical, electrochemical, or chemical graining process, which is followed by one or more anodizing treatments that form a hydrophilic layer on the aluminum-containing substrate. An image-recording, oleophilic layer that is sensitive to light, including but not limited to ultra-violet, visible, or infrared, is dispersed in a polymeric binder material that is applied on top of the hydrophilic layer, generally on one side of the aluminum lithographic printing plate. The oleophilic light-sensitive layer is capable of capturing an image that is transferred onto the plate by either light or heat. The image applied to an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the production of newspapers, magazines, books, yearbooks, coupons, packaging, and other printed materials through an offset printing process, where an aluminum lithographic printing plate facilitates the transfer of an image onto the printed media. Aluminum lithographic printing plates within the scope of these orders include all aluminum lithographic printing plates, irrespective of the dimensions or thickness of the underlying aluminum substrate, whether the plate requires processing after an image is applied to the plate, whether the plate is ready to be mounted to a press and used in printing operations immediately after an image is applied to the plate, or whether the plate has been exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate or remains unexposed and is free of any image.
Subject merchandise also includes aluminum lithographic printing plates produced from an aluminum sheet coil that has been coated with a light-sensitive image-recording layer in a subject country and that is subsequently unwound and cut to the final dimensions to produce a finished plate in a third country (including the United States), or exposed to light or heat to create an image on the plate in a third country (including in a foreign trade zone within the United States).
Excluded from the scope of these orders are lithographic printing plates manufactured using a substrate produced from a material other than aluminum, such as rubber or plastic.
Aluminum lithographic printing plates are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 3701.30.0000 and 3701.99.6060. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of these orders may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 3701.99.3000 and 8442.50.1000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
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 City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with Gary Paxton Industrial Park Vessel Haulout Project in Sawmill Cove in Sitka, Alaska.
This authorization is effective one year from the date of issuance.
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:
Kate Fleming, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On January 18, 2024, NMFS received a request from CBS for an IHA to take
NMFS previously issued an IHA to CBS for similar work (82 FR 47717, October 13, 2017). CBS complied with all the requirements (
This IHA covers one year of a larger project; CBS intends to request a future take authorization for subsequent facets of the project. In year 1, construction of the following elements are planned: 150-ton capacity vessel haulout piers, expanded uplands including stormwater collection and treatment, and a vessel washdown pad. The larger multi-year project involves construction of a queuing float, approach dock and gangway, a pile-supported deck area, vessel haulout ramp, an uplands shipyard, and pile anodes. While not planned to be constructed as part of this project, CBS's goal is to eventually construct additional haulout piers to accommodate removal of vessels up to 300 tons.
The CBS is constructing a vessel haulout facility at Gary Paxton Industrial Park in Sawmill Cove in Sitka, Alaska. Across 62 construction days across a 1-year period, CBS plans to ibratory and impact install 36-in steel haulout pier support piles (both vertical and battered), vibratory install 24-in steel fender piles, and vibratory install and remove 24-in steel temporary template pipe piles. These methods of pile driving would introduce underwater sounds that may result in take, by Level A and Level B harassment, of marine mammals.
A detailed description of the planned construction project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to CBS was published in the
On May 3, 2024, NMFS published (89 FR 36762) and solicited public comment on its draft updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing Underwater and In-Air Criteria for Onset of Auditory Injury and Temporary Threshold Shifts (Version 3.0) (2024 Technical Guidance), which includes updated thresholds and weighting functions to inform auditory injury (AUD INJ) estimates. The public comment period ended on June 17th, 2024, and the 2024 Technical Guidance was finalized on October 24, 2024. The 2024 Technical Guidance represents the best available science and has been incorporated into the analysis in this final IHA. The relevant updated hearing group names, thresholds, and weighting functions may be found in the executive summary of the 2024 Technical Guidance. The resultant updated isopleths for this project are presented in table 9 of the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section. There were no substantive changes to Level A harassment isopleths for low frequency cetaceans (they increased slightly during vibratory activities and decreased slightly during impact pile driving). However, for high-frequency cetaceans (categorized as mid-frequency cetaceans prior to application of the 2024 Technical Guidance), phocids, and otariids, Level A harassment isopleths increased substantially during all pile driving activities. Additionally, for very high frequency cetaceans (categorized as high frequency cetaceans prior to application of the 2024 Technical Guidance), Level A harassment isopleths decreased slightly during vibratory activities and substantially during impact pile driving.
Necessary modifications to mitigation zones are presented in table 12 in the Mitigation section. In cases where the Level A harassment zones were smaller, the mitigation zones were not adjusted. In cases where the Level A harassment zones were larger, the mitigation zones were increased to either meet the Level A harassment isopleth, or to whatever distance was established after consideration of practicability and observability.
For all species, the total number of takes proposed for authorization is equal to the total number of takes authorized by Level A and Level B harassment; for some species, estimates of take by Level A harassment were updated based on the analysis under the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance. Updated take numbers are presented in table 10.
Specifically, species with increased take by Level A harassment include Pacific white-sided dolphin (
NMFS also corrected a number of typographical errors. In table 6 of the proposed IHA
Next, in table 8 of the proposed IHA
Finally, in the small numbers section of the proposed IHA
Sections 3 and 4 of CBS's application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and 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 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 and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at:
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by CBS's GPIP vessel haulout project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
The effects of underwater noise from CBS's construction activities have the potential to result in the harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 56317; July 9, 2024) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of underwater noise from CBS's construction 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 56317; July 9, 2024).
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which informed 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 are primarily by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the authorized take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
CBS's activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.
The thresholds identifying the onset of Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) based on 2018 Technical Guidance and included in the proposed FRN (89 FR 56317, July 9, 2024) are provided in table 4. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds used in the proposed IHA are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the planned project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
The project includes vibratory pile installation and removal, and impact pile driving. Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each pile size and activity each year are presented in table 6. Source levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same.
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
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 2024 Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as pile driving, 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 AUD INJ, which includes, but is not limited to, PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting estimated isopleths, are reported below. Table 8 provides the calculated Level A isopleths that are based on the 2018 Technical Guidance, which were presented in the proposed FRN (89 FR 56317, July 9, 2024) while table 9 provides the updated Level A isopleths using the 2024 Technical Guidance.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations.
Additionally, we describe how the occurrence information is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and authorized. Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the vicinity of the project area includes site-specific and nearby survey information and historic data sets. Prior data sets consulted included: (1) PSO monitoring completed at the project site on 8 days between September 20 and 29, 2023 during the geotechnical investigation preceding this project (Solstice, 2023), (2) PSO monitoring completed at the project site on 22 days between October and November 2017 during the Multipurpose Dock Project (TMC, 2017), (3) PSO monitoring completed at O'Connell Bridge (approximately 7 km to the east of the project site) on 4 days in June 2019 (CBS, 2019); (4) Land-based surveys conducted at Sitka's Whale Park completed weekly between September and May 1995—2000 (Straley and Pendell (2017)); and, (5) data available on the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (see CBS's application for further details).
To estimate take, CBS referred to the above referenced data sets to estimate total (Level A and Level B combined) takes per day for each species and multiplied this factor by the total number of construction days. NMFS finds it more appropriate to describe the take estimate inputs according to a daily occurrence probability in which groups per day and group size are estimated for each species and multiplied by the number of days of each type of pile driving activity. The equation used to estimate take by Level B harassment for all species is:
CBS initially planned to implement shutdown zones for mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids (except Steller sea lions) that met or exceeded the Level A harassment isopleths for all activities. Using the 2018 Technical Guidance, the calculated Level A harassment zones during impact installation of 36-in steel piles, planned to occur on 30 construction days, exceeded the shutdown zones for phocids, high frequency cetaceans, and low frequency cetaceans. After applying the 2024 Technical Guidance, the calculated Level A harassment zones for this activity exceeded the shutdown zones for all species except killer whale. The best available abundance estimates for these species cover the general region of Sitka Sound and Silver Bay; therefore, we used proportional comparisons of predicted harassment areas to estimate predicted take by Level A harassment. In the absence of density data, best available monitoring data for the general area were used to estimate take by Level A harassment. Specifically, to calculate estimated take by Level A harassment for all species except California sea lion and Northern fur seal, which are expected to be very rare for the area) we proportionally compared, by hearing group, the portion of the largest Level A harassment area square kilometers (km
For Steller sea lions, during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (batter and support), the shutdown zone will be established at 60 meters (m) rather than the larger Level A harassment isopleths due to practicability; local monitoring data suggests that Steller sea lions frequently occur within close proximity of the project site. The method described above did not produce an estimate of take by Level A harassment consistent with the best available data for this species at the project location. Therefore, recent monitoring data collected at this site (Solstice, 2023), were used to calculate take by Level A harassment. The proportion of Steller sea lions detected between 60 m and the largest level A zone (130 m based on 2018 Technical Guidance, updated to 1,087 m based on the 2024 Technical Guidance) was multiplied by group size, number of daily sightings, and the number of construction days when impact pile driving would occur according to this equation:
Take estimates were rounded up to the nearest whole number in table 10.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of 31 gray whales, based on an estimated 1 gray whale every 2 days for 62 construction days. However, during weekly surveys conducted from September to May between 1995 and 2000, gray whales were infrequently observed in groups of 3 from Whale Park. As such, NMFS proposed 1 group of 3 gray whales every 14 construction days (62/14 construction days = 4.4 2-week construction week periods), resulting in 14 takes by Level B harassment (1 group × 3 gray whales × 4.4 construction periods = 13.2 takes by Level B harassment).
The shutdown zone exceeds the calculated Level A harassment zone except during impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles (support and battered), estimated across 30 construction days. As such, it is possible that gray whales may occur in the Level A harassment zone and stay long enough to incur AUD INJ before exiting during those 30 days. For 36-in support piles, the ratio of the Level A harassment area (km
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the potential for AUD INJ closer to the source might also be behaviorally disturbed, however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not count those exposures of one individual as a take by both Level A and
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of 248 humpback whales, based on an estimated 4 humpback whales occurring every 1 construction day for 62 construction days. NMFS concurred with this take estimate, acknowledging that 2 groups of 2 humpback whales occurring each construction day is reasonable based on previous monitoring data (2 groups × 2 humpback whales × 62 construction days = 248 takes by Level B harassment of humpback whale).
The shutdown zone exceeds the calculated Level A harassment zone except during impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles (support and battered), estimated across 30 construction days. As such, it is possible that humpback whales may occur in the Level A harassment zone and stay long enough to incur AUD INJ before exiting. For 36-in support piles, the ratio of the Level A harassment area (km
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the potential for AUD INJ closer to the source might also be behaviorally disturbed, however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not count those exposures of one individual as a take by both Level A and Level B harassment. Therefore, takes by Level B harassment calculated as described above were further modified to deduct the amount of take by Level A harassment. Therefore, NMFS has authorized 12 takes by Level A harassment and 236 takes by Level B harassment for humpback whale, for a total of 248 takes. When allocating take across stocks, take estimates are rounded up to the nearest whole number.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of 31 killer whales, based on an estimated 1 killer whale occurring every 2 construction days for 62 construction days. However, because killer whales were unpredictably observed from Whale Park in groups of 4-8 during weekly surveys conducted from September to May between 1995 and 2000, NMFS found it more appropriate to propose 1 group of 8 killer whales every 7 construction days (62/7 construction days = 8.9 construction weeks), and has authorized the resulting 71 takes by Level B harassment (1 group × 8 killer whales × 8.9 construction weeks = 71 takes by Level B harassment). No takes by Level A harassment were requested or are authorized.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of 16 Pacific white-sided dolphin, based on an estimated 1 Pacific white-sided dolphin occurring every 4 construction days for 62 construction days. However, although a rare occurrence, Pacific white-sided dolphin were observed in groups averaging 4 individuals when sighted from Whale Park during weekly surveys conducted from September to May between 1995 and 2000. As such, NMFS finds it more appropriate to authorize 1 group of 4 Pacific white-sided dolphin every 14 construction days (62 ÷ 14 = 4.4 2-week construction periods), resulting in 18 authorized takes by Level B harassment (1 group × 4 Pacific white-sided dolphin × construction 4.4 periods = 17.6 takes by Level B harassment). No takes by Level A harassment were requested or proposed for authorization (89 FR 56317, July 9, 2024).
However, using the 2024 Technical Guidance, the re-calculated Level A harassment zone exceeds the planned shutdown zone during impact installation of 36-in steel piles (estimated to occur on 30 construction days). NMFS therefore finds it appropriate to authorize 4 takes by Level A harassment of Pacific white-sided dolphin, which is derived from the following: For 36-in support piles, the ratio of the Level A harassment area (km
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the potential for AUD INJ closer to the source might also be behaviorally disturbed, however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not count those exposures of one individual as a take by both Level A and Level B harassment. Therefore, takes by Level B harassment calculated as described above were further modified to deduct the amount of take by Level A harassment. Thus, NMFS has authorized 4 takes by Level A harassment and 14 takes by Level B harassment for Pacific white-sided dolphin, for a total of 18 takes. When allocating take across stocks, take estimates are rounded up to the nearest whole number.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of 16 harbor porpoise, based on an estimated 1 harbor porpoise occurring every 4 construction days for 62 construction days. However, harbor porpoise were rarely observed from Whale Park in groups of five during weekly surveys conducted from September to May between 1995 and 2000. As such, NMFS finds it more appropriate to authorize 1 group of 5 harbor porpoise every 14 construction days (62 ÷ 14 construction days = 4.4 2-week construction week periods), resulting in 22 takes by Level B harassment (1 group × 5 harbor porpoises × 4.4 construction periods = 22 takes by Level B harassment).
During impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles, estimated across 30 construction days, the expected Level A harassment zone is larger than the planned shutdown zone (see Figure 1 of the Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). As such, it is possible that harbor porpoise may enter the Level A harassment zone and stay long enough to incur AUD INJ before exiting. For 36-in support piles, the ratio of the Level A harassment area (km
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the potential for AUD INJ closer to the source might also be behaviorally disturbed; however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not count those exposures of one individual as a take by both Level A and Level B harassment. Therefore, takes by Level B harassment calculated as described above were further modified to deduct the amount of take by Level A harassment. Thus, NMFS has authorized 6 takes by Level A harassment and 16 takes by Level B harassment for harbor porpoise, for a total of 22 takes.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of 496 Steller sea lions, based on an estimated 8 Steller sea lions occurring every 1 construction day for 62 construction days. NMFS concurs with this take estimate, acknowledging that four groups of two Steller sea lions occurring each construction day is reasonable based on previous monitoring data (2 groups × 4 Steller sea lion × 62 construction days = 496 takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lion).
During impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles, estimated across 30 construction days, the expected Level A harassment zone is larger than the shutdown zone. As such, it is possible that Steller sea lion may enter the Level A harassment zone and stay long enough to incur AUD INJ before exiting. For 36-in support piles, the ratio of the Level A harassment area that exceeds the planned shutdown zone (km
However, the 19.2 takes by Level A harassment estimated using the method described above likely does not reflect the true occurrence of Steller sea lion in the project area. Based on monitoring data collected during geotechnical survey conducted to inform CBS's IHA application, Steller sea lions are expected to disproportionally occur within close proximity to the project site. All (100 percent) Steller sea lions documented during that survey were observed between 60 m and 1,087.9 m, which corresponds to the Level A zones during impact pile driving of 36-in piles after applying the 2024 Technical Guidance. These scenarios may occur on up to 30 construction days. Therefore 240 additional takes by Level A harassment are anticipated (2 groups of 4 Steller sea lion × 30 construction days × 1 = 240 takes by Level A harassment).
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the potential for AUD INJ closer to the source might also be behaviorally disturbed, however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not count those exposures of one individual as a take by both Level A and Level B harassment. Therefore takes by Level B harassment calculated as described above are further modified to deduct the authorized amount of take by Level A harassment. Thus, NMFS has authorized 240 takes by Level A harassment and 256 takes by Level B harassment for Steller sea lion, for a total of 496 takes.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of five California sea lions, based on an estimated one California sea lion occurring every month that construction is planned (October to March = 5 months) to account for the unlikely but small possibility that California sea lion could occur in the project area. However, NMFS finds it more appropriate to estimate take by Level B harassment according to duration of in-water work (62 construction days/30 days in 1 month = 2.06 construction months). As such, NMFS authorized take by Level B harassment of three California sea lion (1 group × 1 California sea lion × 2.06 construction months = 2.06 takes by Level B harassment of California sea lion). After applying the 2024 Technical Guidance, calculated Level A harassment isopleths increased to 830 m and 1,087 m during impact pile driving activities, which is much further than the distances at which we estimate this species can reliably be observed by PSOs. As such NMFS has authorized a maximum total of 3 takes by either Level B or Level A harassment.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of five northern fur seals, based on an estimated one northern fur seal occurring every month that construction is planned (October-March = 5 months) to account for the unlikely but small possibility that northern fur seals could occur in the project area. However, NMFS finds it more appropriate to estimate take by Level B harassment according to the duration of in-water work (62 construction days/30 days in 1 month = 2.06 months). As such, NMFS authorized take by Level B harassment of three northern fur seals (1 group × 1 northern fur seal × 2.06 construction months = 2.06 takes by Level B harassment of northern fur seal). After applying the 2024 Technical Guidance, calculated Level A harassment isopleths increased to 830 m and 1,087 m during impact pile driving activities, which is much further than the distances at which we estimate this species can reliably be observed by PSOs. As such, NMFS has authorized a maximum total of 3 takes by either Level B or Level A harassment.
CBS requested take by Level B harassment of 124 harbor seals, based on an estimated 2 harbor seals occurring every 2 construction days for 62 construction days. However, because harbor seals are frequently documented in the project area, NMFS finds it more appropriate to authorize 186 takes by Level B harassment of harbor seal, based on the maximum groups size of 3 documented at the project site in 2017 (1 group × 3 harbor seal × 62 construction days = 186 takes by Level B harassment).
During impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles, estimated across 30 construction days, the expected Level A harassment zone is larger than the planned shutdown zone. As such, it is possible that harbor seal may enter the Level A harassment zone and stay long enough to incur AUD INJ before exiting.
Any individuals exposed to the higher levels associated with the potential for AUD INJ closer to the source might also be behaviorally disturbed, however, for the purposes of quantifying take we do not count those exposures of one individual as a take by both Level A and Level B harassment. Therefore, takes by Level B harassment calculated as described above are further modified to deduct the amount of take by Level A harassment. Thus, NMFS has authorized 53 takes by Level A harassment and 133 takes by Level B harassment for harbor seal, for a total of 186 takes.
The total takes authorized for all species are summarized in table 10 below, which reflects changes incorporated after applying the 2024 Technical Guidance. Take by Level A harassment is authorized for a total of 3 individuals for gray whale, 12 individuals for humpback whale, 4 individuals for Pacific white-sided dolphin (increased from 0), 6 individuals for harbor porpoise (increased from 5), 240 individuals for Steller sea lion (increased from 88), 53 (increased from 34) individuals for harbor seal, 3 individuals of California sea lion (increased from 0), and 3 individuals of Northern fur seal (increased from 0).
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on
(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, and impact on operations.
Construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant CBS staff must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction. If an activity is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until, either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone indicated in table 11, or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
Finally, construction activities must be halted upon observation of a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met entering or within any harassment zone. If a marine mammal species not covered under this IHA enters a harassment zone, all in-water activities will cease until the animal leaves the zone or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes, and NMFS would be notified about species and precautions taken. Pile driving will proceed if the unauthorized species is observed leaving the harassment zone or if 15 minutes have passed since the last observation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS has determined that the planned 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. Note that the applicant opted to forgo the use of a bubble curtain as a mitigation measure as its use would decrease production rates due to the need to reposition the curtain around piles and vessel traffic, the need to maintain and operate the compressor, and delays associated with mechanical malfunctions.
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
• 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.
• PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor), and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;
• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator will be designated. The lead observer will be required to have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization; and
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to this IHA.
PSOs must also have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including, but not limited to, the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was note implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
Visual monitoring will be conducted by a minimum of 3 trained PSOs positioned at suitable vantage points, such as the project site, Sawmill Creek Road and Medveje Hatchery (see figure 1 in CBS's Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). During vibratory pile driving, at least one PSO will have an unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone. During impact pile driving, a second PSO will be placed at Sawmill Creek Road to ensure the largest shutdown zone extending into Eastern Channel is observable and a third PSO would be placed at Medvejie Hatchery to ensure as much of the shutdown zone in Silver Bay is observable as possible. All PSOs will be stationed on elevated platforms to aid in monitoring marine mammals.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, PSOs will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and will document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
CBS will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The marine mammal monitoring report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report will include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including: (1) the number and type of piles that were driven and the method (
• 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: (1) name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; (2) time of sighting; (3) identification of the animal(s) (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
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 PSO data will be submitted electronically in a format that can be queried such as a spreadsheet or database and will be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Holder must report the incident to the OPR, NMFS (
• 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.
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 (
The incorporation of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance does not alter the original scope of the activity analyzed or our effects analysis in a manner that materially affects the basis for original findings under the IHA. Shutdown zones have been increased to meet or exceed the Level A harassment zone calculated using the 2024 Technical Guidance where practicable. In cases where the shutdown zones cannot be increased due to observability or practicability concerns, a slightly larger proportion of overall proposed take has been authorized as take by Level A harassment. However, the total take authorized remains the same as the take proposed for authorization during the public comment period for all species. Accordingly, we have determined that even with the incorporation of the 2024 Technical Guidance, this project will have a negligible impact on the affected species stocks and the negligible impact analysis presented in the proposed FRN remains applicable.
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 1, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
Pile driving and removal 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 and, for some species, Level A harassment from underwater sounds generated by pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.
No serious injury or mortality is expected, even in the absence of required mitigation measures, given the nature of the activities.
Following the incorporation of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance take by Level A harassment is authorized for all species except killer whale. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ (
Further, the amount of take by Level A harassment authorized is very low for all marine mammal stocks and species, except Steller sea lion. NMFS expects no more than 3 takes by Level A harassment for gray whale, 12 takes by Level A harassment for humpback whale; 4 takes by Level A harassment for Pacific white-sided dolphin, 6 takes by Level A harassment for harbor porpoise; 53 takes by Level A harassment for harbor seal; 3 takes by Level A or Level B harassment for California sea lion; and, 3 takes by Level A or Level B harassment for Northern fur seal. Although 240 takes by Level A harassment for Steller sea lion are authorized, if hearing impairment occurs, it is most likely that the affected animal would lose only a few dB in its hearing sensitivity. Due to the small degree anticipated, any AUD INJ potential incurred would not be expected to affect the reproductive success or survival of any individuals, much less result in adverse impacts on the species or stock.
Additionally, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. However, since the hearing sensitivity of individuals that incur TTS is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours, it is unlikely that the brief hearing impairment would affect the individual's long-term ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics, and would therefore not likely impact reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammal, let alone adversely affect rates of recruitment or survival of the species or stock.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, would likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
The project is also not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause a low level of turbidity in the water column and some fish may leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected (with no known particular importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
While Steller sea lions are common in the project area, there are no essential primary constituent elements, such as haulouts or rookeries, present. The nearest haulout is well over 25 km away. Therefore, the project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on the critical habitat of Western DPS Steller sea lions. No areas of specific biological importance (
In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would have any effect on each stock's ability to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities would have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and would therefore not result in population-level impacts.
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;
• Level A harassment would be of a low degree, and except for Eastern DPS Steller sea lion and harbor seal, of very small amounts;
• For all species, Silver Bay and East Channel are a very small and peripheral part of their range;
• Anticipated takes by Level B harassment are relatively low for all stocks. Level B harassment would be primarily in the form of behavioral disturbance, resulting in avoidance of the project areas around where impact or vibratory pile driving is occurring, with some low-level TTS that may limit the detection of acoustic cues for relatively brief amounts of time in relatively confined footprints of activities;
• Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts on their populations;
• The ensonified areas are very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and would not adversely affect ESA-designated critical habitat for any species or any areas of known biological importance;
• The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat; and
• CBS will implement mitigation measures including visual monitoring, soft-start, and shutdown zones to minimize the numbers of marine mammals exposed to injurious levels of sound, and to ensure that take by Level A harassment is, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ.
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 planned monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS authorized is below one third of the estimated stock abundance for all species. This is likely a conservative estimate because we assume all takes are of different individual animals, which likely would not be the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs will count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
The most recent abundance estimate for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whale is likely unreliable as it is more than eight years old. The most relevant estimate of this stock's abundance in Southeast Alaska is 918 humpback whales (Wade, 2021), so the 4 authorized takes by Level B harassment and 1 authorized take by Level A harassment is small relative to the estimated abundance (<1 percent), even if each authorized take occurred to a new individual.
There is no abundance information available for the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska stock of harbor porpoise. However, the take numbers are sufficiently small (16 takes by Level B harassment and 6 takes by Level A harassment, updated from 17 takes by Level B harassment and 5 takes by Level A harassment after applying the 2024 Technical Guidance) that we can safely assume that they are small relative to any reasonable assumption of likely population abundance for these stocks. For reference, current abundance estimates for harbor porpoise stocks in Southeast Alaska include 1,619 (Northern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters) and 890 (Southern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the planned 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.
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 § 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that: (1) 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) cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
For marine mammals, Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested harbor seals and Steller sea lions in Sitka, Alaska. During the most recent ADF&G subsistence harvest report (2013), about 11 percent of Sitka households used subsistence-caught marine mammals, however, this is the most recent data available and there has not been a survey since 2013 (ADF&G, 2023).
The project is not likely to adversely impact the availability of any marine mammal species or stocks that are commonly used for subsistence purposes or impact subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the region because:
• There is no recent recorded subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the area;
• Construction activities are temporary and localized to the Gary Paxton Industrial Park, and industrial area;
• Construction will not take place during the herring spawning season when subsistence species are more active;
• Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize disturbance of marine mammals in the action area; and
• The project will not result in significant changes to availability of subsistence resources.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the planned mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from CBS's planned activities.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is authorizing take of western DPS of Steller sea lions and the Mexico DPS of humpback whales, which are listed under the ESA. The NMFS AKRO issued a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to CBS under section 1010(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by NMFS OPR. The biological opinion concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species.
To comply with the NEPA of 1969 (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 CBS for the potential harassment of small numbers of nine marine mammal species incidental to the Gary Paxton Industrial Park Vessel Haulout project in Sitka, Alaska, that includes the previously explained mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine and Coastal Area-based Management Advisory Committee (MCAM). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined under
The meeting will be held on December 9, 2024, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time.
The meeting will be held virtually on the Google Meets Platform. Registration is not required. Participants may join the meeting by computer or by phone:
The MCAM website may be found at
Ellie Roberts, Program Analyst, NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries,
As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the MCAM. The MCAM was established in 2022 to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on science-based approaches to area-based protection, conservation, restoration, and management in coastal and marine areas, including the Great Lakes. The MCAM charter is located online at
The meeting time and agenda are subject to change. The meeting is
The meeting will be open to public comment (check the meeting agenda on the MCAM website to confirm the time for oral public comments). Written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Official by December 4, 2024, to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after December 4, 2024, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. To submit written comments, please email Ellie Roberts,
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ellie Roberts at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of renewal 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 a renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Municipality of Skagway (MOS) to incidentally harass marine mammals incidental to the terminal redevelopment project in Skagway, Alaska.
This renewal IHA is valid from the date of issuance through September 30, 2025.
Electronic copies of the original application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, 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 Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. 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).
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the
• 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.
3. 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.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
On August 29, 2023, NMFS issued an IHA to MOS to take marine mammals incidental to the terminal redevelopment project in Skagway, Alaska (88 FR 60652, September 5, 2023), effective from October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024. On February 5, 2024, NMFS received a request from MOS to modify the 2023 IHA; adding 2 takes by Level A harassment and 45 takes by Level B harassment for northern fur seal, and to adjust take requests based on average species densities throughout the year due to work occurring in all seasons and, consequently, increasing authorized take by Level B harassment to 270 for Steller sea lion. On May 3, 2024, NMFS issued MOS a modification of the initial 2023 IHA (89 FR 36765).
On July 22, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of the initial IHA (as modified). After discussions with MOS about the work to be conducted under the renewal IHA, we received a revised renewal request on September 30, 2024. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of a subset of the activities that were covered by the initial authorization but which were not completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a final monitoring report, available online at:
MOS planned to redevelop the Skagway Ore Terminal in Skagway, Alaska, with 196 days of pile installation and removal. This project involved installation and removal of 36 temporary steel pile guides, removal of 692 piles, and installation of 244 permanent steel piles. Two different installation methods were used: vibratory pile driving and impact pile driving. Due to unexpected delays, MOS did not complete the construction during the initial 1-year period, completing removal of 385 piles and installation of 101 piles.
This renewal is to cover a subset of the activities covered in the initial IHA that was not completed during the effective IHA period and which is planned to occur during the effective period of the renewal IHA. Specifically, MOS plans to install two maximum-diameter 24-in piles and remove ten timber piles, which are necessary to stabilize a single existing fender. The remainder of the initially planned work would not be conducted under this renewal IHA.
The likely or possible impacts of the MOS's activity on marine mammals is unchanged from the impacts described in the initial IHA. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment, vessels, and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Sounds resulting from pile installation, removal, and drilling may result in the incidental take of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment in the form of auditory injury or behavioral harassment.
A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (88 FR 23627, April 18, 2023; 88 FR 60652, September 5, 2023). As previously mentioned, this request is for a subset of the activities considered for the initial IHA that were not completed prior to its expiration and which are planned to occur under this renewal IHA. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notice for the initial IHA. The renewal IHA would be effective from the date of issuance through September 30, 2025.
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is authorized here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization and the notice of issuance of a modified IHA (88 FR 23627, April 18, 2023; 89 FR 36765, May 3, 2024).
NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA and modified IHA (88 FR 23627, April 18, 2023; 89 FR 36765, May 3, 2024).
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the limited subset of activities for which the authorization of take is authorized here may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (88 FR 23627, April 18, 2023). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant unusual mortality events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization and the notice of issuance of the modified IHA
On May 3, 2024, NMFS published (89 FR 36762) and solicited public comment on its draft 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which includes updated thresholds and weighting functions to inform auditory injury estimates, and once finalized replaced the 2018 Technical Guidance referenced in the initial and modified IHA notices. The public comment period ended on June 17, 2024, and the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance was finalized on October 24, 2024 (89 FR 84872).
In this renewal, use of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance results in changes to the estimated Level A harassment zones, but there are no changes to the estimated Level B harassment zones (table 1). In the proposed renewal we compared the outcomes of the Updated Technical Guidance and there was not substantial differences for any species, so the, at the time, draft 2024 Updated Technical Guidance was used in the analysis. Therefor there are no changes from the proposed renewal IHA to the final renewal IHA. The updated Level A harassment zones are used to revise estimations of potential take by Level A harassment. In table 2, we have presented values based on the methodology that was included in the previous authorizations, incorporating the previously described changes (number of piles per day and the Updated Technical Guidance). Takes are a proportion of the initial authorized takes and based on the days of work included in this renewal IHA. Mitigation zones, in consideration of the updated isopleths, are discussed in the Mitigation section.
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are substantially similar to those included in the FR notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA, and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document remains accurate (88 FR 60652, September 5, 2023). The only
The following mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures for this renewal are:
• The MOS must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10-m of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction;
• Conduct training between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team and relevant MOS staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood;
• Pile driving activity must be halted upon observation of either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the harassment zone;
• MOS will establish and implement the shutdown zones. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones typically vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group;
• Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of construction activity (
• Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead Protected Species Observer (PSO) to determine the shutdown zones clear of marine mammals. Construction may commence when the determination is made;
• If construction is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal;
• MOS must use soft start techniques when impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors and equipment to slowly approach the work site creating a visual disturbance allowing animals in close proximity to construction activities a chance to leave the area prior to stone resetting or new stone placement. A soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's construction activity and at any time following cessation of activity for a period of 30 minutes or longer;
• The MOS must employ up to four PSOs to monitor the shutdown and Level B harassment zones during pile driving activities;
• Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after construction 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 construction activity;
• The MOS must submit a draft report detailing all monitoring within 90 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first;
• The MOS must prepare and submit final report within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS;
• The MOS must submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above); and
• The MOS must report injured or dead marine mammals.
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA to MOS was published in the
The renewal request consists of a subset of activities analyzed through the initial authorization described above. In analyzing the effects of the activities for the initial IHA, NMFS determined that MOS's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and that authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks (
NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the
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 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
The NMFS Alaska Regional Office issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to MOS for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting the terminal redevelopment construction in Skagway, Alaska, from the date of issuance through September 30, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a series of three online meetings of its Advisory Bodies to discuss Pacific Council projects funded under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA); all three meetings are open to the public.
The online meetings will be held on Wednesday, December 11, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Pacific time, or until business for the day is completed; Friday, December 13, 2024, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., or until business for the day is completed; and Tuesday, December 17, 2024, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., or until business for the day is completed.
These meetings will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meetings and system requirements, will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Gilly Lyons, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2427.
The Pacific Council will hold a series of three online meetings to discuss its IRA projects and associated project planning and development. Members of Advisory Bodies in attendance may also discuss project timelines, work products, milestones, and Advisory Body roles and responsibilities. Each meeting will focus on a separate IRA project: December 11—
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of renewal incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as
This renewal IHA is valid from May 1, 2025 through April 30, 2026.
Electronic copies of the original application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
Kristy Jacobus, 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 such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, 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 Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. 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).
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
• 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 (
• 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.
3. 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.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
On January 22, 2024, NMFS issued an IHA to PG&E to take marine mammals incidental to construction associated with sediment remediation in San Francisco Bay, CA (89 FR 5865, January 30, 2024), effective from May 1, 2024, through April 30, 2025. On September 26, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are nearly identical to those covered in the initial IHA. Although PG&E anticipates that construction will begin during the timeframe of the initial IHA, no work has yet commenced and therefore no preliminary monitoring data are available. The notice of the proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization was published on October 16, 2024 (89 FR 83459). There are no changes from the proposed renewal IHA to the final renewal IHA.
The planned activities are nearly identical to those analyzed in the initial IHA. As the first phase of a 5- to 7-year project to remediate sediments impacted with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in San Francisco Bay, PG&E is planning to install hydroacoustic data collection piles, piles to attach a turbidity curtain, sediment pins to promote slope stability, and install and remove piles to relocate the Red and White Fleet (RWF). A detailed description of these activities can be found in the Notice of the initial Proposed IHA (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023). Under the initial IHA, eight 24-inch steel shell piles and eight 36-inch steel shell piles were to be installed and removed for the RWF Relocation. Under the renewal IHA, PG&E plans to install and remove 10 24-inch piles and 10 36-inch steel shell piles for the RWF Relocation. No more than four of each of these piles would be installed or removed per day. As
Under the initial IHA, take by Level B harassment from pile driving was authorized for harbor seal (
Documents related to the initial IHA including the
A detailed description of the pile driving activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the Notices of the Proposed and Final IHAs (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023; 89 FR 5865, January 30, 2024) for the initial authorization. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices.
The only minor change for this renewal IHA is the addition of two 24-inch and two 36-inch steel shell piles in the RWF relocation, which would be installed with vibratory pile driving and impact pile driving only as needed to seat the piles. The piles would be removed with vibratory methods. The addition of these piles would not change the number of in-water work days (50 days; see table 1). The renewal would be effective for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of expiration of the initial IHA. The effective dates would be from May 1, 2025, to April 30, 2026.
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Notice of the Proposed IHA (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023) for the initial authorization. NMFS has reviewed the 2023 draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined there is no new information that affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA. The abundance estimate for the eastern stock of the Steller sea lion has decreased from 43,201 to 36,308 according to the 2023 draft SAR (Young
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the Notice of the Proposed IHA (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023) for the initial authorization. NMFS has reviewed recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity is found in the Notices of the Proposed and Final IHAs (88 FR 82836, November 27, 2023; 89 FR 5865, January 30, 2024) for the initial authorization. The only changes PG&E would make for the renewal IHA is to add 2 24-inch steel shell piles and 2 36-inch steel shell piles, resulting in a total of 10 of each piles, for installation and removal in the RWF Relocation portion of the project. The source levels, days of operation, and marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA, as do the number of takes, which are indicated below in table 2.
On October 24, 2024 NMFS published (89 FR 84872) its final Updated Technical Guidance (
NMFS has also considered whether modifications to mitigation requirements,
Although some estimated Level A harassment zones have increased using the 2024 guidance, consistent with the initial IHA, no Level A harassment takes are anticipated, because PG&E will change the shutdown zones accordingly and consistent with the intent of the measures prescribed through the initial IHA, as discussed in
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are nearly identical to those included in the
• PG&E must shut down construction operations if a marine mammal comes within 10 m of construction activity to avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals;
• PG&E must establish shutdown zones for all pile driving activities. Shutdown zones are based on the largest Level A harassment zone for each pile size/type and driving method;
• PG&E must shut down during active pile driving if marine mammals approach shutdown zones (see table 6);
• NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) must be used to monitor the full shutdown zones and as much of the Level B harassment zone as possible;
• PSOs must monitor the shutdown zones for at least 30 minutes prior to pile driving, throughout pile driving, and 30 minutes after;
• If marine mammals are found within the shutdown zone, pile driving must be delayed until the animal has moved out of the shutdown zone;
• PG&E must shut down if any species for which take has not been authorized, or a species for which take has been authorized but the authorized take numbers have been met, approaches or enters the Level B harassment zones;
• Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be visible (
• PG&E must implement impact pile driving soft starts whereby hammer energy is gradually ramped up;
• A bubble curtain must be used during impact pile driving of steel piles;
• PG&E must submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities or 60 calendar days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHA for construction activity 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;
• All injured or dead marine mammals must be reported to the Office of Protected Resources and to the West Coast regional stranding network.
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA to PG&E was published in the
NMFS disagrees that the mitigation is not adequate to address the increased pile driving activities. As previously mentioned, the addition of the four piles would increase the time frame of the project on the scale of hours and would not increase harassment distances. NMFS expects that the required mitigation measures, which include implementation of shutdown zones, monitoring of zones using PSOs, soft start procedures for impact pile driving, and use of a bubble curtain for impact pile driving of steel piles, is sufficient to effect the least practicable adverse impact.
NMFS disagrees that the application of Categorical Exclusion B4 from further analysis under NEPA is inappropriate, and the commenter provides no rational basis for this assertion. The issuance of a renewal IHA to PG&E for take of marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities is consistent with activities identified in categorical exclusion B4. The addition of four steel piles, of the same size and type as analyzed under the initial IHA, does not result in any changes to the anticipated environmental impacts and, therefore, application of CE B4 remains appropriate.
NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of the estimated abundance of the eastern stock of the Steller sea lion decreasing, updated analysis reflecting the 2024 Technical Guidance, and corresponding updates to required shutdown zones. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) PG&E's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
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 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to PG&E for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting pile driving activities associated with the Sediment Remediation Project in San Francisco Bay, CA effective from May 1, 2025 to April 30, 2026.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Executive Committee, including joint sessions with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board and Policy Board.
The meetings will be held Tuesday, December 10, 2024, through Thursday, December 12, 2024. For agenda details, see
This meeting will be an in-person meeting with a virtual option. Council members, other meeting participants, and members of the public will have the option to participate in person at The Westin Annapolis, 100 Westgate Circle, Annapolis, MD 21401, or virtually via Webex webinar. Webinar connection instructions and briefing materials will be available at:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's website,
The following items are on the agenda, although agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible.)
Review 2024 Ricks E. Savage Award nominations.
Review Advisory Panel and Monitoring Committee recommendations.
Review previously adopted 2025 recreational measures and recommend changes if warranted.
Review Advisory Panel and Monitoring Committee recommendations.
Review previously adopted 2025 recreational measures and recommend changes if warranted.
Review Advisory Panel and Monitoring Committee recommendations.
Recommend conservation equivalency or coastwide management and associated measures for 2025.
Consider approval of draft scoping/public information document.
Review final report.
Review recommendations from the SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff.
Review previously adopted 2025 specifications and management measures, and recommend changes if necessary.
Review report from Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Species Separation Requirements Amendment Implementation Issues Workshop.
Take up postponed motion to consider Alternative 5 as the preferred Amendment alternative.
Select Council preferred alternative and take final action.
Review and approve the 2025-2029 Council Research Priorities.
Review and approve the 2025 Implementation Plan.
Review recommendations from the Law Enforcement Committee and staff.
Consider adopting modifications to butterfish mesh requirements.
Presentation of the 2023 Ricks E Savage Award.
Staff from Manomet will present the results of a Council-funded project to develop a hub for river herring and shad run data.
Committee Reports (SSC), Highly Migratory Species (HMS), Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP); Executive Director's Report; Organization Reports; and Liaison Reports.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 98 Data Workshop for Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper.
The SEDAR 98 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico red snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 98 Data Workshop will be held from 8:30 a.m. on December 10, 2024, until 1 p.m. on December 13, 2024. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data/Assessment Workshop, and (2) a series of webinars. The product of the Data/Assessment Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Data Workshop are as follows:
An assessment data set and associated documentation will be developed during the workshop.
Participants will evaluate proposed data and select appropriate sources for providing information on topics such as life history characteristics, catch statistics, discard estimates, length and age composition, and fishery dependent and fishery independent measures of stock abundance.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) and service(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes product(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
On October 18, 2024 (89 FR 83842), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
Notice.
Applicable October 1, 2024.
Andrew Cannarsa, CIGIE Executive Director, (202) 292-2600. Individual Office of Inspectors General at the telephone numbers listed below.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, created the Offices of Inspectors General as independent and objective units to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to Federal programs and operations. The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 established the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the Offices of Inspectors General. CIGIE is an interagency council whose executive chair is the Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, and is comprised principally of the 73 Inspectors General (IGs).
Under 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5), and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, each agency is required to establish one or more Senior Executive Service (SES) performance review boards. The purpose of these boards is to review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. The current members of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Performance Review Board, as of October 1, 2024, are as follows:
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Information is used by the American Society for Engineering Education, the contractor selected to administer the program, to down select the eligible applicants by means of a peer review panel. The information is also used by scientists of the Air Force, Army, and Navy, to make the final selection of awardees.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
Notice is given of the names of members of a Performance Review Board for the Department of the Army.
Applicable November 5, 2024.
Barbara Smith, Civilian Senior Leader Management Office, 111 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0111, email:
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.
The Department of the Army Performance Review Board will be composed of a subset of the following individuals:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of committee meeting.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place.
The meeting will be held on Friday, November 22, 2024, time: 9 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting will be required to show a DoD government photo ID or submit to and pass a background check prior to entering West Point in order to gain access to the meeting location.
The meeting will be held in the Haig Room, Jefferson Hall, 758 Cullum Road, West Point, New York 10996.
Mr. David Nagle, the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, in writing at: USMA Secretary of the Geneal Staff, ATTN: David Nagle, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at:
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its November 22, 2024 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and
Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense, (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 21, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to ODASD(MC&FP), Mr. Trevor Dean, 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, (703) 571-2359.
The DD Form 565 is a form to assist mortuary personnel with the identification of the remains of deceased personnel, family members, civilians, or other personnel that may be in the care of the DoD. Identification of deceased persons is a critical step in providing proper disposition of the remains. Information collected includes information on the respondent and a witness.
The DD Form 3116 is a report filed with Service casualty and mortuary affairs offices with information regarding the transportation of human remains of deceased active-duty personnel to their place of interment. The escort also reports on the condition of remains, casket and any incident during transportation to assist the Service casualty and mortuary affairs offices in their support of the person authorized to direct disposition of the remains. The report also informs the Service casualty and mortuary affairs offices of any issue needed to be resolved with the receiving funeral home.
The DD Form 3122 is an official request for military funeral honors at the funeral or memorial of an eligible deceased veteran. A request for military funeral honors for an eligible veteran must be supported by law. The form will be sent to military funeral honors coordinators for their review, analysis for eligibility, scheduling, and to capture costs to provide the required military funeral honors elements. The form contains contact information for the next-of-kin requesting military funeral honors.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), Department of Defense, (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
This information collection supports the voluntary sharing of cyber incident information from DoD contractors in accordance with 32 Code of Federal Regulations part 236, “DoD- DIB CS Activities,” which authorizes the DIB CS Program. Sharing cyber incident information is critical to DoD's
Activities under this information collection also support DoD's critical infrastructure protection responsibilities, as the sector specific agency for the DIB sector (see Presidential Policy Directive 21, “Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience,” available at
Defense contractors are encouraged to share information including cyber threat indicators that they believe may be of value in alerting the Government and others, as appropriate, to adversary activity so that we can develop mitigation strategies and proactively counter threat actor activity. Cyber incidents that are not compromises of covered defense information or do not adversely affect the contractor's ability to perform operationally critical support, may be of interest to the DIB and DoD for situational awareness purposes.
The information collection is based on the DoD contractor's internal assessment and determination that cyber information should be shared with DoD. Once the defense contractor determines that a report will be valuable to the community, they submit a cyber-incident report using the Incident Collection Format (ICF) that can be accessed via the web portal (
DoD established this portal as the single reporting site for cyber incident information, whether mandatory or voluntary. A defense contractor selects the “Report a Cyber Incident” button. The defense contractor will then be prompted for their DoD-approved medium assurance certificate to gain access to the ICF. The contractor is then directed to a Privacy Act Statement web page that clearly states all cyber incident reports are stored in accordance with the DIB CS Activities System of Record Notice. Contractors are then allowed to access the ICF and input data. Once a defense contractor completes the ICF, they are given a preview of the ICF to ensure that all the information they are providing is correct. After verifying the information is correct, the defense contractor will then click the “submit” button. A reporting submission ID number is provided when the report is submitted. DoD uses this number to track the report and actions related to the report.
The report is analyzed by cyber threat experts at DC3 and they, in turn, develop written products that include analysis of the threat, mitigations, and indicators of adversary activity. These anonymized products are shared with authorized DoD personnel, other Federal agencies and designated points of contact in defense companies participating in the DIB CS Program. The products developed by DC3 do not contain company attribution, proprietary or personal information, but are vital to improving network security within the Government and the DIB.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 21, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of the Under
White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the December 11, 2024, open meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans (PAC) and provides information to members of the public about how to attend the meeting and submit written comments related to the work of the PAC. Notice of the meeting is required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend.
The PAC will meet on December 11, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. eastern daylight time (EDT).
The meeting will be held at the White House located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. The public can attend the meeting virtually.
Dr. Monique Toussaint, Designated Federal Official, U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-0964. Email
The PAC shall advise the President in the following areas: (i) what is needed for the development, implementation, and coordination of educational programs and initiatives at the Department and other agencies to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for Black Americans; (ii) how to promote career pathways for in-demand jobs for Black students, including registered apprenticeships, internships, fellowships, mentorships, and work-based learning initiatives; (iii) how to increase public awareness of and generate solutions for the educational and training challenges and equity disparities that Black Americans face and the causes of these challenges; and (iv) approaches to establish local and national partnerships with public, private, philanthropic, and nonprofit stakeholders to advance the mission and objectives of Executive Order 14050, consistent with applicable law.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, (202) 570-8414.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of a modified system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-108 and A-130, the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is publishing notice of a modification to an existing Privacy Act System of Records. DOE proposes to amend System of Records DOE-27 Foreign Travel Management System (FTMS). This System of Records Notice (SORN) is being modified to align with new formatting requirements, published by OMB, and to ensure appropriate Privacy Act coverage of business processes and Privacy Act information.
This modified SORN will become applicable following the end of the public comment period on December 23, 2024 unless comments are received that result in a contrary determination.
Written comments should be sent to Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Rm 8H-085, Washington, DC 20585, by facsimile at (202) 586-8151, or by email at
Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Rm 8H-085, Washington, DC 20585, by facsimile at (202) 586-8151, by email at
On January 9, 2009, DOE published a Compilation of its Privacy Act Systems of Records, which included System of Records DOE-27 Foreign Travel Management System (FTMS). This notice proposes amendments to the system locations section of that system of records by removing the following system location where DOE-27 is no longer applicable: Environmental
DOE-27 Foreign Travel Management System (FTMS).
Unclassified.
Systems leveraging this SORN may exist in multiple locations. All systems storing records in a cloud-based server are required to use government-approved cloud services and follow National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) security and privacy standards for access and data retention. Records maintained in a government-approved cloud server are accessed through secure data centers in the continental United States.
U.S. Department of Energy, Director, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
U.S. Department of Energy, Germantown, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290.
U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208.
U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415.
U.S. Department of Energy, Director, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
42 U.S.C. 7101
Records in this system are maintained and used by DOE to document all official foreign travel by DOE employees and contractor employees, and any approvals.
DOE employees, including National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and contractor employees, authorized to travel to foreign countries on official government business.
Traveler's name and the last four digits of their Social Security number, background data relating to proposed foreign travel; authorization number, travel itinerary; official or personal passport information, visa information, and summary report following completion of travel.
Individual travelers, supervisors, and travel offices.
1. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to the General Services Administration for verification of transportation services.
2. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to DOE contractors in performance of their contracts, and their officers and employees who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties. Those provided information under this routine use are subject to the same limitations applicable to Department officers and employees under the Privacy Act.
3. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to the Department of State or border control or immigration services for purpose of obtaining foreign country clearance for the traveler.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to the appropriate local, Tribal, State, or Federal agency when records, alone or in conjunction with other information, indicate a violation or potential violation of law whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program pursuant thereto.
5. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to a member of Congress submitting a request involving a constituent when the constituent has requested assistance from the member concerning the subject matter of the record. The member of Congress must provide a copy of the constituent's signed request for assistance.
6. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DOE (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
7. A record from this system may be disclosed as a routine use to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
Records may be stored as paper records or electronic media.
Records are retrieved by name, Social Security number, or travel authorization number.
Retention and disposition of these records is in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration-approved records disposition schedule with a retention of 6 years.
Electronic records may be secured and maintained on a cloud-based software server and operating system that resides in Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) and Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) hosting environment. Data located in the cloud-based server is firewalled and encrypted at rest and in transit. The security mechanisms for handling data at rest and in transit are in accordance with DOE encryption standards. Records are protected from unauthorized access through the following appropriate safeguards:
•
•
•
The Department follows the procedures outlined in title 10 CFR 1008.4. Valid identification of the individual making the request is required before information will be processed, given, access granted, or a correction considered, to ensure that information is given, corrected, or records disclosed or corrected only at the request of the proper person.
Any individual may submit a request to the System Manager and request a copy of any records relating to them. In accordance with 10 CFR 1008.11, any individual may appeal the denial of a request made by him or her for information about or for access to or correction or amendment of records. An appeal shall be filed within 90 calendar days after receipt of the denial. When an appeal is filed by mail, the postmark is conclusive as to timeliness. The appeal shall be in writing and must be signed by the individual. The words “PRIVACY ACT APPEAL” should appear in capital letters on the envelope and the letter. Appeals relating to DOE records shall be directed to the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
In accordance with the DOE regulation implementing the Privacy Act, 10 CFR part 1008, a request by an individual to determine if a system of records contains information about themselves should be directed to the U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters, Privacy Act Officer. The request should include the requester's complete name and the time period for which records are sought.
None.
This SORN was last published in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November 18, 2024, by Ann Dunkin, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of change in control.
The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of a Statement and Notice of Change in Control (Notice) filed by Rio Grande LNG, LLC (Rio Grande LNG) on October 31, 2024. The Notice describes a change in Rio Grande LNG's upstream ownership. The Notice was filed under the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
Protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention, as applicable, and written comments are to be filed as detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, December 9, 2024.
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit filings electronically to ensure timely receipt.
Jennifer Wade or Peri Ulrey, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement, Office of Resource Sustainability, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4749 or (202) 586-7893,
Cassandra Bernstein, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the
Rio Grande LNG states that, by means of a transaction (Transaction) that closed on October 1, 2024, its upstream ownership structure has changed. According to Rio Grande LNG, BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock), a publicly traded investment management firm domiciled in the United States, acquired 100% of the limited liability company interests in Global Infrastructure Management, LLC (GIM), a global independent infrastructure fund manager headquartered in New York. GIM indirectly owns GIP V Velocity Acquisition Partners, L.P. (GIP V Velocity), an indirect upstream owner of a minimum of 46.12% economic interest in Rio Grande LNG Intermediate Holdings, LLC (RGIH), which, in turn, indirectly owns 100% of Rio Grande LNG. Accordingly, as a result of the Transaction, BlackRock now indirectly owns a minimum of 46.12% economic interest in RGIH. In sum, Rio Grande LNG states that only the ownership of GIM is being modified as a result of the Transaction, and there are no modifications to RGIH's ownership of Rio Grande LNG.
Additional details can be found in the Notice, posted on the DOE website at:
DOE will review the Notice in accordance with its Procedures for Changes in Control Affecting Applications and Authorizations to Import or Export Natural Gas (CIC Procedures).
Interested persons will be provided 15 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods:
(1) Submitting the filing electronically at
(2) Mailing the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
(3) Hand delivering the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
For administrative efficiency, DOE prefers filings to be filed electronically. All filings must include a reference to “Docket No. 15-190-LNG” in the title line, or “Rio Grande LNG, LLC Change in Control” in the title line.
The Notice, and any filed protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and comments will be available electronically on the DOE website at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
The Balch Project is located downstream of PG&E's Haas-Kings River Hydroelectric Project No. 1988 and Helms Pumped Storage Project No. 2735, which use the same reservoirs (Courtright Lake and Lake Wilshon) for operation. The project is operated as a peaking facility to generate power that is released from upstream storage to meet power demand and for irrigation purposes. Project operation is coordinated with Project No. 1988, whose releases from Lake Wilshon largely control inflow to Black Rock Reservoir; however, spill fluctuations at the project are possible at times when inflow exceeds powerhouse capacity and during powerhouse outages.
The current license requires PG&E to maintain the following continuous minimum flows in the North Kings River: (1) during normal water years: (a) from June 1 through November 31, 5 cfs from Black Rock Reservoir, 15 cfs from Balch Afterbay, and 30 cfs of total river flow; and (b) from December 1 through May 31, 2.5 cfs from Black Rock Reservoir, 10 cfs from Balch Afterbay, and 30 cfs of total river flow; (2) during dry water years, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources, year-round flows of 2.5 cfs from Black Rock Reservoir, 10 cfs from Balch Afterbay, and 20 cfs of total river flow.
PG&E proposes to continue operating the project in a manner that is consistent with current operation, with the exception of the following new proposed measures: (1) minimum flows and water year types, (2) a recreation plan, (3) a biological resources management plan, (4) a historic properties management plan, (5) low-level operations, (6) flood period operations, (7) a hazardous substance plan, (8) a gaging plan, (9) visual resources management, (10) a fire management and response plan, and (11) a transportation system management plan.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
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
o.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing but is not ready for environmental analysis.
l. The Scott's Mill Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) an existing masonry dam containing two spillways separated by a 25-foot-wide stone pier, with one 735-foot-long, 15-foot-high overflow spillway and the other a 140-foot-long, 16-foot-high arch-section spillway; (2) an impoundment with a surface area of 305 acres at the normal pool elevation of 516.4 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88); (3) a new modular powerhouse containing nine generating units with a total installed capacity of 4.5 megawatts that would be installed immediately downstream of the existing arch-section spillway of the dam; (4) a new 1,200-foot-long overhead transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
To increase flow through the modular powerhouse, Scott's Mill proposes to remove the top 6.8 feet of the existing arch-section spillway of the dam and add 2-foot-high flashboards to the existing overflow spillway. Scott's Mill proposes to operate the project in a run-of-river mode, except on the 10 days of peak annual electrical demand in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) regional transmission organization, during which time the project may operate in a peaking mode for up to two hours per day. The estimated annual energy production of the project is 20,700 megawatt-hours.
m. A copy of the application is available for review via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
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
n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
o.
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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
The Reusens Project operates in a peaking mode with an average annual generation of 22,504 megawatt-hours between 2018 and 2021.
m. A copy of the application is available for review via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
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
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
o.
Take notice that on November 13, 2024, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, SFPP, L.P. filed a petition with the Commission for a declaratory order related to a proposed expansion of a portion of SFPP's East Line pipeline system that transports refined petroleum products from origin points in El Paso, Texas, to destination points at Tucson, Arizona.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted an information collection request (ICR), TSCA Mercury Inventory Reporting, (EPA ICR Number 2567.05, OMB Control Number 2070-0207) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR which is currently approved through February 28, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before December 23, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0617, to EPA online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Katherine Sleasman, Office of Program Support (7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1206; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2025. An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Public comments were previously requested via the
The primary purpose of this ICR is to support the development of that inventory. In turn, the inventory will help the Agency identify uses of mercury and recommend means to achieve further reductions of such uses in commerce. In addition, the Agency seeks to obtain the information necessary to achieve its goal to further reduce the use of mercury in products and certain manufacturing processes in order to prevent future releases to the environment, as well as assist the United States in reporting implementation under the Minamata
Reporting is required from any person who manufactures (including imports) mercury or mercury-added products, as well as any person who otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process under TSCA section 8(b). The Agency promulgated reporting requirements at 40 CFR part 713. To avoid duplication, EPA coordinated the reporting with the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Animal Agriculture and Water Quality Subcommittee, a subcommittee of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) will be held virtually on December 6, 2024. The goal of the AAWQ subcommittee is to provide recommendations that will inform the Agency's decisions regarding how to improve the implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permitting program.
The public meeting of the AAWQ will be held virtually only on Friday, December 6, 2024, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will take place virtually only. To register to attend virtually and receive information on how to listen to the meeting and to provide comments, please visit:
Dr. Venus Welch-White, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Meetings of the AAWQ are open to the public. An agenda will be posted on AAWQ's website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (EPA ICR Number 1617.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0247) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2024. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before December 23, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0039, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Allison Horwitch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2468; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2024. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Other affected groups include independent standards testing organizations and organizations with technician certification programs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated October 9, 2024, denying a petition dated July 9, 2024, from Sierra Club. The petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to Warrick Newco LLC for its aluminum production plant located in Newburgh, Warrick County, Indiana.
The final order, the petition, and other supporting information are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you contact the individual listed in the
Priyanka Painuly, Air and Radiation Division (AR 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7569,
EPA received a petition from the Sierra Club dated July 9, 2024, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. T173-46378-00007, issued by IDEM to Warrick Newco LLC for its aluminum production plant located in Newburgh, Warrick County, Indiana. On October 9, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The order explains the basis for EPA's decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than January 21, 2025.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability of Draft NPDES General Permit.
The Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 1 (EPA), is providing a Notice of Availability for the Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Massachusetts Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System General Permit (MA MS4 GP) for discharges to certain waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This Draft NPDES MA MS4 GP (“Draft GP”) establishes Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements, permit eligibility requirements, and conditions and practices for the management of stormwater discharges from small MS4s. The Draft GP is available on EPA Region 1's website at
Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2025.
The public comment process and the public hearing will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 124, EPA's Procedures for Decision making. All persons, including applicants, must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments supporting their positions on the Draft GP by the close of the public comment period, either by submitting written comments as listed in the
EPA will hold a virtual public hearing in accordance with 40 CFR 124.12 and will provide interested parties with the opportunity to provide written and/or oral comments for the official draft permit record. The virtual public hearing will be held Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document in the
In reaching a final decision on this Draft GP, EPA will respond to all significant comments and make responses available to the public on EPA Region 1's website. All comments must be postmarked or delivered electronically by the close of the public comment period.
Written comments on the Draft GP, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OW-2024-0493, may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
In the event that interested parties cannot access the Portal, comments may be emailed to Danielle Gaito at
Additional information may be obtained from: Danielle Gaito, U.S. EPA Region 1, Water Division, Stormwater Permit Section at
EPA is proposing to reissue three draft NPDES general permits for the discharge of stormwater from small MS4s to certain waters within the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The three permits are:
For convenience, EPA grouped these three distinct permits together in a single document (referred to as the draft “permit” in singular) and have provided
The conditions in the Draft GP are established pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) to ensure that pollutant discharges from small MS4s are reduced to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), protect water quality, and satisfy the appropriate requirements of the CWA. The Draft GP applies to small municipal separate storm sewer systems in Massachusetts as defined in the regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(16). When final, the Draft GP will replace the Final Massachusetts MS4 GP issued on April 4, 2016 and modified on December 7, 2020. This Draft GP carries forward and builds on the requirements of EPA's previous MA small MS4 general permits.
The non-numeric conditions and limits for stormwater discharges authorized under the Draft GP are in the form of best management practices (BMPs). The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k)(2) provide that permits may include BMPs to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when authorized under section 402(p) of the CWA for control of stormwater discharges. Due to the variability associated with stormwater, EPA believes the use of BMPs is currently the most appropriate method to regulate discharges of stormwater from municipal systems.
The Draft GP establishes requirements for small MS4s to “reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), including management practices, control techniques, and system, design and engineering methods” Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA. The Draft GP requires small MS4s to update and continue to implement a comprehensive stormwater management program (SWMP) to reduce the discharge of pollutants. Part 2.3 of the Draft GP requires small MS4s to implement a SWMP that includes the following minimum control measures: public education and outreach; public participation; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction stormwater management; stormwater management in new development and redevelopment; and good housekeeping in municipal operations. EPA views the MEP standard in the CWA as an iterative process and, as such, requirements should continually adapt to current conditions and BMP effectiveness. Accordingly, the Draft GP advances the MEP requirements of the 2016 MA MS4 Permit, particularly with respect to implementation of green infrastructure and low impact design elements.
Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of CWA authorizes EPA to include in an MS4 permit “such other provisions as [EPA] determine[s] appropriate for control of . . . pollutants.” Parts 2.1 and 2.2 of the Draft GP carry forward water quality-based effluent limitations from the 2016 MA MS4 Permit to ensure that discharges do not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. The provisions, expressed in the form of additional control measures beyond the minimum control measures in the Part 2.3 of the Draft GP, apply specifically to stormwater discharges to impaired waterbodies with and without an EPA-approved total maximum daily load (TMDL). The Draft GP extends these requirements to additional waterbodies for which EPA approved a TMDL or Alternative Restoration Plan since the issuance of the 2016 MA MS4 Permit.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
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
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 December 23, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments 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 December 9, 2024.
1.
1.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend for three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearances for information collection requirements contained in four consumer financial regulations enforced by the Commission. Those clearances expire on November 30, 2024.
Comments must be filed by December 23, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Carole Reynolds (
The four regulations covered by this notice are:
(1) Regulations promulgated under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691
(2) Regulations promulgated under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693
(3) Regulations promulgated under the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1667
(4) Regulations promulgated under the Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601
As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC and the CFPB generally share the authority to enforce Regulations B, E, M, and Z for entities for which the FTC had enforcement authority before the Act, except for certain motor vehicle dealers.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC generally has sole authority to enforce Regulations B, E, M, and Z regarding certain motor vehicle dealers predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both, that, among other things, assign their contracts to unaffiliated third parties.
The ECOA prohibits discrimination in the extension of credit. Regulation B implements the ECOA, establishing disclosure requirements to assist customers in understanding their rights under the ECOA and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies in enforcement. Regulation B applies to retailers, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, finance companies, and diverse others. In 2023, the CFPB amended Regulation B, to create subparts A and B, in implementing amendments mandated by section 1071 of the Dodd Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1691c-2, pertaining to small business lending, including for small businesses owned by women or minorities.
The Federal Reserve Board has not issued its related rule for these requirements covering certain
The EFTA requires that covered entities provide consumers with accurate disclosure of the costs, terms, and rights relating to electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) and certain other services. Regulation E implements the EFTA, establishing disclosure and other requirements to aid consumers and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies with enforcement. It applies to financial institutions, retailers, gift card issuers and others that provide gift cards, service providers, various federal and state agencies offering EFTs, prepaid account entities, and others.
The CLA requires that covered entities provide consumers with accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of leases. Regulation M implements the CLA, establishing disclosure requirements to help consumers comparison shop and understand the terms of leases and recordkeeping requirements. It applies to vehicle lessors (such as auto dealers, independent leasing companies, and manufacturers' captive finance companies), computer lessors (such as computer dealers and other retailers), furniture lessors, various electronic commerce lessors, diverse types of lease advertisers, and others.
The TILA was enacted to foster comparison credit shopping and informed credit decision-making by requiring creditors and others to provide accurate disclosures regarding the costs and terms of credit to consumers. Regulation Z implements the TILA, establishing disclosure requirements to assist consumers and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies with enforcement. These requirements pertain to open-end and closed-end credit and apply to various types of entities, including mortgage companies; finance companies; auto dealerships; private education loan companies; merchants who extend credit for goods or services; credit advertisers; acquirers of mortgages; and others. Additional requirements also exist in the mortgage area, including for high cost mortgages, higher-priced mortgage loans,
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by section
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an existing OMB clearance regarding a notarized document submittal for System for Award Management (SAM) Registration.
Submit comments on or before January 21, 2025.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to
Ms. Salomeh Ghorbani, Director, IAE Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement Division, at 703-605-3467 or
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 4.11 prescribes policies and procedures for requiring contractor registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) database to: (1) Increase visibility of vendor sources (including their geographical locations) for specific supplies and services; and (2) establish a common source of vendor data for the Government.
In the past, the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an investigation into fraudulent activities discovered within SAM. Certain bad actors have, through electronic means, used public information to impersonate legitimate entities and established new entity registrations for those entities in SAM. By establishing fraudulent entity registrations, bad actors submitted bids in certain U.S. Government procurement systems or shipped deficient or counterfeit goods to the U.S. Government.
GSA established this information collection request (ICR) to collect additional information to support increased validation of entities registered and registering in the System for Award Management (SAM). This additional information is contained in a notarized letter in which an officer or other signatory authority of the entity formally appoints the Entity Administrator for the entity registering or recertifying in SAM. The original, signed letter is mailed to the Federal Service Desk for SAM prior to the registration's activation or re-registration.
The collection of the notarized letter information is essential to GSA's acquisition mission to meet the needs of all Federal agencies, as well as the needs of the grant community. A key element of GSA's mission is to provide efficient and effective acquisition solutions across the Federal Government. SAM is essential to the accomplishment of that mission. In addition to Federal contracts, Federal assistance programs also rely upon the integrity and security of the information in SAM. Without assurances that the information in SAM is protected and is at minimal risk of compromise, GSA would risk losing the confidence of the Federal acquisition and assistance communities which is serves. As a result, some entities may prefer not to do business with the Federal Government.
The information collection allows GSA to request the notarized letter and apply this approach to new registrants (an average of 7,200 per month) and to existing SAM registrants (an average of 50,000 re-register per month).
Entities registered and registering in SAM are provided the template for the requirements of the notarized letter. It is estimated that the Entity Administrator will take on average 0.5 hour to create the letter and 0.25 hour to mail the hard copy letter. GSA proposes that an Entity Administrator equivalent to a GS-5, Step 5 Administrative Support person within the Government would perform these tasks. The estimated hourly rate of $24.70 (Base + Locality + Fringe) was used for the calculation.
Based on historical data of the ratio of small entities to other than small entities registering in SAM, GSA approximates 32,200 of the 57,200 new and existing entities (re-registrants) will have in-house resources to notarize documents. GSA proposes that the entities with in-house notaries will typically be large businesses where the projected salary of the executive or officer responsible for signing the notarized letter is on average approximately $150 per hour. The projected time for signature and notarizing the letter internally is 0.5 hour.
The other remaining 25,000 new and existing entities (re-registrants) per month are estimated to be small entities where the projected salary of the executive or officer responsible signing the notarized letter is on average approximately $100 per hour. These entities will more than likely have to obtain notary services from an outside source. The projected time for signature and notarizing the letter externally is 1 hour. The estimate includes a nominal fee ($5.00) usually charged by third- party notaries.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary, whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate,
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice and request for public comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, GSA invites the public to comment on a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement for a placement of orders clause, and an ordering information provision.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Vernita Misidor, Procurement Analyst, GSA Acquisition Policy Division, by phone at 202-357-9681 or by email at
GSA has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of the Federal Acquisition Service's (FAS's) Special Order Program items. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of various types of FAS contracts.
As such, the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 516.506 specifically directs contracting officers to insert 552.216-72, Placement of Orders, and 552.216-73, Ordering Information, when the contract authorizes FAS and other activities to issue delivery or task orders. This clause and provision includes information reporting requirements for Offerors to receive electronic orders through computer-to-computer Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).
A 60-day notice published in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section
1.
SSA uses this information to determine whether an individual meets the requirements for Medicare enrollment on the basis of an Environmental Health Hazard. The form is faxed to the applicant's provider by SSA. The provider must complete and sign the form and submit it back to SSA via fax or mail. The information on the completed form is reviewed manually by SSA. Thus, the collection of this information does not involve the use of information technology.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by January 21, 2025.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires Federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Section 1859(f)(3)(D) of the Act and 42 CFR 422.107 established the requirement for D-SNPs to have contracts with state Medicaid agencies in addition to other contracting requirements that that apply to all MA plans.
MA organizations with D-SNPs and states use the information in the contract to provide benefits, or arrange for the provision of Medicaid benefits, to which an enrollee is entitled. CMS reviews the D-SNP contract with the state Medicaid agency to ensure that it meets the minimum contract requirements at § 422.107(c) and (d). CMS uses the attestations and matrices in the appendices of this package to identify the types of D-SNPs an MA organization(s) offers and the location of the contract requirements in the document.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Orthopedic Non-Spinal Bone Plates, Screws, and Washers—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” This guidance document provides recommendations for information to include in 510(k) submissions for non-resorbable bone plate, screw, and washer devices. The scope of this guidance includes devices that are indicated for orthopedic bone fixation but does not include devices indicated for spinal, mandibular, maxillofacial, cranial, and orbital fracture fixation.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential 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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Mahlet Zinah, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4452, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-2623.
Non-spinal, non-resorbable bone plates, screws, and washers are implants intended for bone fixation. These are class II medical devices for which the safety and effectiveness are well-established. This guidance provides recommendations for the content and organization of premarket notification (510(k)) submissions including the information FDA recommends industry include in a 510(k) submission for these device types (
A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Non-Spinal Bone Plates, Screws, and Washers—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following table have been approved by OMB:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than January 21, 2025.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
HRSA uses the UDS for annual reporting of program-specific data by Health Center Program awardees (those funded under section 330 of the PHS Act), Health Center Program look-alikes (entities meeting requirements of, but not funded under, section 330 of the PHS Act), and Nurse Education, Practice, Quality and Retention (NEPQR) and Advanced Nursing Education (ANE) Program awardees (specifically those funded under the practice priority areas of sections 831(b) and 811 of the PHS Act).
Some NEPQR and ANE Program awardees establish and expand nursing practice arrangements in noninstitutional settings to demonstrate methods to improve access to primary health care in medically underserved communities. Nursing grantees implementing nursing practice arrangements have historically used the same data collection system as the Health Center Program.
•
•
•
•
• Tables 6B and 7 collect UDS clinical quality measures,
• Beginning with the 2024 UDS, health centers will be able to submit de-identified, patient-level data in fulfillment of data elements on Tables:
UDS+ Patient-Level Reporting leverages a shift in processes by which health centers will submit their annual UDS reports while maintaining historic UDS measures. Health Centers are encouraged to submit data through UDS+.
UDS+ is currently in the testing phase and data submission supports system capacity building and progress towards full implementation. The technical test will inform next steps for scaling this innovation. High-quality accessible data are critical to strategically meeting the unique needs of health center patients and identifying training and technical assistance opportunities for clinical process improvement. The growth in health information technology coupled with the near universal adoption of electronic health records across health centers has transformed patient care delivery and underscored the need for secure and rapid exchange of health data between disparate systems. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources® is a Health Level Seven International® standard for exchanging health care information electronically.
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
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 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan and Indiana (“Pokagon Band”) to include the counties of Kalamazoo, Kent, and Ottawa in the State of Michigan. The final PRCDA for the Pokagon Band now includes the Michigan counties of Allegan, Berrien, Cass, Kalamazoo, Kent, Ottawa, and Van Buren, and the Indiana counties of Elkhart, Kosciusko, La Porte, Marshall, St. Joseph, and Starke. The sole purpose of this expansion is to authorize additional Pokagon Band members and beneficiaries to receive Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) services.
This expansion is effective as of the date of publication of this notice.
This notice can be found at
CAPT John Rael, Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships by email 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 services. Services needed, but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility, are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the relative medical priority of the services to be provided, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.
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 notice of proposed redesignation and requested public comments on May 17, 2024 (89 FR 43415). The IHS did not receive any comments in response to the notice of proposed redesignation.
In support of this expansion, the IHS makes the following findings:
1. By expanding the PRCDA to include Kalamazoo, Kent, and Ottawa Counties in the State of Michigan, the Pokagon Band's PRC-eligible population will increase by an estimated 537 Tribal citizens.
2. The Tribal citizens and certain other PRC-eligible individuals within the expanded PRCDA are socially and economically affiliated with the Pokagon Band based on a Tribal resolution in which the Pokagon Band Tribal Council identified its intent to expand the PRCDA to include Kalamazoo, Kent, and Ottawa Counties in Michigan, and stated that the Tribal citizens and certain other individuals residing in such areas are socially and economically affiliated with the Pokagon Band.
3. The expanded PRCDA counties form a contiguous area with the existing PRCDA, and Pokagon Band citizens reside in each of the expansion counties. For these reasons, the IHS has determined that the expansion counties are geographically proximate, meaning “on or near”, to the Pokagon Band's reservation.
4. The Pokagon Band has indicated that its PRC program can continue providing the same level of care to the expanded PRC-eligible population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by the IHS to the Pokagon Band to provide services to the Pokagon Band's PRC-eligible population as a result of this PRCDA expansion.
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 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
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee up to 15 days after the meeting date by forwarding the statement to the Contact Persons 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.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to three minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record.
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 Vaccine Research Center Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
The meeting will be open to the public via Zoom,
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document provides notice to customs brokers that the annual user fee that is assessed for each permit held by a customs broker, whether an individual, partnership, association, or corporation, is due no later than January 31, 2025. Pursuant to fee adjustments required by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, the customs broker permit user fee payable for calendar year 2025 will be $180.57.
Payment of the 2025 Customs Broker Permit User Fee is due no later than January 31, 2025.
Mohammad O. Qureshi, Chief, Broker Management Branch, Office of Trade, (202) 909-3753, or
Pursuant to section 111.96 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (19 CFR 111.96(c)), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses an annual user fee for each customs broker permit granted to an individual, partnership, association, or corporation. The CBP regulations provide that this fee is payable each calendar year for a national permit held by a customs broker and must be paid by the due date published annually in the
Section 24.22 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 24.22) sets forth the terms and conditions for when fees for certain services, including specific customs user fees, are required. The specific customs user fee amounts that appear in 19 CFR 24.22 are not the actual fees but represent the base year amounts that are subject to adjustment each fiscal year in accordance with the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, December 4, 2015). Section 32201 of the FAST Act amended section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust certain customs COBRA user fees and corresponding limitations to reflect certain increases in inflation. Paragraph (k) of section 24.22 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 24.22(k)) sets forth the methodology to adjust fees for inflation and to determine the change in inflation, including the factor by which the fees and limitations will be adjusted, if necessary.
Customs brokers are subject to an annual customs broker permit user fee calculated using the base year amount in appendix A to 19 CFR part 24, as adjusted by the terms in 19 CFR 24.22(k).
Thus, as required by 19 CFR 24.22, CBP provided notice in the
Customs brokers may either submit the fee through the eCBP portal or submit the fee at the processing Center, as defined in 19 CFR 111.1, in accordance with the remittance procedures in 19 CFR 24.22(i). CBP encourages customs brokers to pay the annual customs broker permit user fee electronically via the eCBP portal, located at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than December 23, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than December 23, 2024) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema,
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of availability; renewal of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council Charter.
On September 9, 2024, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security approved the renewal of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) Charter. Through this notice, the Department is making the renewed CIPAC Charter publicly available and highlighting updated information and guidelines that have been included in the renewed charter.
Amy J. Campbell, 202-372-7014,
DHS established the CIPAC on March 24, 2006
On September 9, 2024, the Secretary of Homeland Security renewed the CIPAC Charter for an additional two years. The renewed CIPAC Charter supersedes the CIPAC Charter dated November 29, 2022, and is available on the CIPAC website at
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Committee management; notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will hold a public meeting of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) on December 11, 2024. Members of the ASAC will meet in person at the TSA Headquarters. Members of the public will be able to participate virtually via Teams. The meeting agenda and information on public participation is provided below under the
The meeting will take place on Thursday, December 11, 2024. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and adjourn at 1 p.m., eastern standard time (EST). As listed in the Public Participation section below, requests to attend the meeting, to address the ASAC, and/or for accommodations because of a disability, must be received by November 29, 2024.
The in-person meeting for ASAC members will be held at the TSA Headquarters, located at 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, Virginia 20598. See Public Participation section below for information on how to register to attend the meeting. Attendance information will be provided upon registration.
Tamika McCree Elhilali, Aviation Security Advisory Committee, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, (TSA-28), Springfield, Virginia 20598,
TSA is providing notice of this meeting in accordance with the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2014, Public Law 113-238 (128 Stat. 2842; Dec. 18, 2014), as codified at 49 U.S.C. 44946. The ASAC provides advice and industry perspective to the Administrator of TSA on aviation security matters, including the development, refinement, and implementation of policies, programs, rulemaking, and security directives pertaining to aviation security. While the ASAC is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. ch. 10),
The Committee will meet to discuss items listed in the agenda below:
The meeting will be open to the public via Teams. Members of the public who wish to participate are required to register via email by submitting their name, contact number, and affiliation (if applicable) to
Members of the public wishing to present oral or written statements must make advance arrangements by November 29, 2024. The statements must specifically address issues pertaining to the items listed in the Meeting Agenda above. Advance requests to present and/or written statements must be submitted via email to
The ASAC and TSA are committed to ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of disability status. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, to full participate, please contact the person listed in the
Office of Multifamily Housing, Office of Housing, HUD.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Multifamily Housing, is modifying system of records for the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). The modification makes clarifying changes to the authority for maintenance of the system, routine uses, policies and practices for retention and disposal of records. The updates are explained in the “Supplementary Section” of this notice. This notice supersedes the previously published SORN.
Comments will be accepted on or before December 23, 2024. This proposed action will be effective immediately upon publication. Routine uses will become effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number or by one of the following methods:
Ladonne White; 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number (202) 708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
HUD, Office of Multifamily Housing maintains the TRACS System. HUD is publishing this notice to include these changes reflecting the modified items below:
1.
2.
3.
Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS)-HUD/HOU-11.
Unclassified.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Headquarters, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001; and at HUD Field and Regional Office. TRACS is maintained at: the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage, 9325 Cypress Loop Road, Stennis, MS 39629.
Lanier M. Hylton, Senior Program Manager, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing Programs, 451 7th Street SW, Room 6124 Washington, DC 20410, (202) 708-2495.
The United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383, 88 Stat. 653, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1437
TRACS performs edit checks and accepts tenant and voucher request data needed to verify data quality, and interfaces with other HUD systems to validate tenant income, verify contract funding, obligate, and commit contract funds, provide information to other HUD divisions, and submit voucher requests for payment to minimize improper payments, and detect subsidy fraud, waste, and abuse in multifamily housing rental housing assistance programs. TRACS automates and integrates critical modules for TRACS activities related to the Contract Business System, the Tenant Business System, and the Voucher/Payment Business System:
• Integrated Multifamily Access Exchange (iMAX) provides efficient access to authorized industry partners (
• Integrated Contracts (iCon) supports rental assistance contracts repository. Contracts are added (
• Automated Renewal and Amendment Management Subsystem (ARAMS) Supports funding functions for contract renewals and amendments. Headquarters staff enter and update funding transactions which are then interfaced to Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS).
Individuals receiving project-based rental housing assistance; property owner, management agent, and contract administrator who administers or receives subsidies.
Full Name, SSN, Date of Birth, Employment Status/History/Information, Address, Marital Status, Military Status or other information, Race/Ethnicity, Phone Number(s), Email Address(s), Salary, Sex, Taxpayer ID, User ID, Name of head of household member, Name of all household members, Name of Owners/management agent, Tenant/owners/management agent, Identification number: Alien Registration Number and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Spouse name, and financial transactions pertaining to the contracts.
Records in the system are obtained from owners/management agents/Housing Authorities and/or Contract administrators on behalf of the assisted tenants. The TRACS system and contained subsystems may collect data and information from the following other systems: Geocode Service Center (GSC), Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS), HUD Central Accounting and Program System (HUDCAPS), Integrated Real Estate Management System (iREMS), Enterprise Income Verification (EIV), Multifamily Data Warehouse (MFH) Data Mart, and Web Access Security System (WASS).
(1) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or their parties, and entities and their agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement for the purposes of statistical analysis and research in support of program operations, management, performance monitoring, evaluation, risk management, and policy development, to otherwise support the Department's mission, or for other research and statistical purposes not otherwise prohibited by law or regulation. Records under this routine use may not be used in whole or in part to make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. The results of the matched information may not be disclosed in identifiable form.
(2) To Housing Authorities, (HAs) to verify the accuracy and completeness of tenant data used in determining eligibility and continued eligibility and the amount of housing assistance received.
(3) To Private Owners of assisted housing to verify the accuracy and completeness of the applicant and tenant data used in determining eligibility and continued eligibility and the amount of assistance received by the applicant.
(4) To HAs, owners, management agents and contract administrators to identify and resolve discrepancies in tenant data.
(5) To the Internal Revenue Service to report income using IRS Form 1099 and to disclose records to the Internal Revenue Service when HUD determines that the use of those records is relevant and necessary to report payments or discharge of indebtedness.
(6) To Social Security Administration and Immigration and Naturalization Service to verify alien status and continued eligibility in HUD's rental
(7) To the congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
(8) To the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which is designated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as the Federal administrator of the Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund) Lifeline Program (Lifeline), the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) program and other Federal Telecommunications Benefit (FTB) programs that utilizes Lifeline eligibility criteria as specified by the Lifeline program, 47 CFR 54.409. The purpose of this routine use is to establish eligibility for the Lifeline, EBB and other FTB programs for families which also participate in a HUD rental assistance program.
(9) To any Federal, State, or local agency (
(10) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) HUD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HUD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security: and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(11) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HUD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to suspected or confirmed breach, or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(12) To contractors, experts, and consultants with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, or another assignment when HUD provides system access to HUD contractors to develop, maintain and troubleshoot application issues to support the Department's programs needed to meet its mission. Upgrades and migrations to this TRACS system are needed to meet the changes in technology and improve system performance.
(13) To Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, their employees, and agents (including contractors, their agents or employees; employees or contractors of the agents or designated agents); or contractors, their employees or agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or computer matching agreement for the purpose of: (1) detection, prevention, and recovery of improper payments; (2) detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in major Federal programs administered by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity; (3) detection of fraud, waste, and abuse by individuals in their operations and programs; (4) for the purpose of establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, recipients or beneficiaries of, participants in, or providers of services with respect to, cash or in-kind assistance or payments under Federal benefits programs or recouping payments or delinquent debts under such Federal benefits programs. Records under this routine use may be disclosed only to the extent that the information shared is necessary and relevant to verify pre-award and prepayment requirements prior to the release of Federal funds or to prevent and recover improper payments for services rendered under programs of HUD or of those Federal agencies and non-Federal entities to which HUD provides information under this routine use.
(14) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement with HUD, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to a system of records.
(15) To any component of the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when HUD determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or agency conducting the litigation has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(16) To appropriate Federal, State, local, Tribal, or other governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where HUD determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws and when such records, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicate a violation or potential violation of law.
(17) To a court, magistrate, administrative tribunal, or arbitrator in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, mediation, or settlement negotiations, or in connection with criminal law proceedings; when HUD determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where HUD has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
Electronic and paper.
Name, SSN, Home Address.
TRACS retention and disposal requirements are assessed at the module level:
(a) ARAMS module (Contract Database) retention instruction is
(b) Tenant Module retention (Extract of TRACS Tenant Data (HUD 50059 data)) instruction is Permanent: Transfer current year electronic data to the National Archives annually at end of calendar year. The initial transfer must include historic (1995-2006) and current electronic data. Nl-207-06-2, item 14.B (a)(2).
(c) Voucher Module (Voucher Database) retention instruction is Temporary: Archive data to tape five (5) years after the last voucher date or any voucher from a contract that has been terminated five (5) years or longer. Delete data from the tape twenty-five (25) years after the last voucher date or any voucher from a contract that has been terminated twenty-five (25) years or longer. N1-207-06-2-Item 14 B a2(c).
(d) iMAX Module retention is Temporary: Delete data twenty-five years after contract expiration date. (NARA Job No. N1-207-06-2, item 14.B (a)(2)(b).
(e) User Guides and Manuals for TRACS and all modules or subsystems retention instruction is Temporary: Destroy or delete when superseded or obsolete. N1-207-06-2, item 14.D(e)
(f) iCon module (Contract Database) retention is Temporary: Delete data twenty-five years after the contract expiration date. Backup and Recovery of digital media will be destroyed or otherwise rendered irrecoverable per NIST SP 800-88 Revision 1 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization” N1-207-06-2-Item 14 B a2(b).
(g) Tenant Database (HUD 50059 data) retention is Temporary. Archive data to tape three (3) years after the certification effective date. NARA Job No. N1-207-06-2, item 14.B (a)
(h) Tenant Archives Database (Sub-set of data derived from Tenant Database) Retention is Temporary. Delete data twenty-five (25) years after the tenant move-out date or twenty-five (25) years after the termination date. NARA Job No. 1-207-06-2, item 14.B(a)(1)
(i) System Documentation and Data Administration Records GRS 3.1 Item 50 & 51
a. Item 50—Documentation necessary for preservation of permanent electronic records. Permanent. Transfer to the National Archives with the permanent electronic records to which the documentation relates. DAA-GRS-2013-0005-0002
b. Item 51—All documentation for temporary electronic records and documentation not necessary for the preservation of permanent records Temporarily. Destroy 5 years after the project/activity/transaction is completed or superseded, or the associated system is terminated, or the associated data is migrated to a successor system, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. DAA-GRS-2013-0005-0034.
(j) System Development records. GRS 3.1 Item 10 & 11
a. Item 10—Infrastructure project records. Temporary. Destroy 5 years after the project is terminated, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. DAA-GRS-2013-0005-0006.
b. Item 11—System development records. Temporary. Destroy 5 years after the system is superseded by a new iteration, or is terminated, defunded, or no longer needed for agency/IT administrative purposes, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. DAA-GRS-2013-0005-0007.
(k) Systems and data security records GRS 3.2 Item 10
a. Item 10—Systems and data security records. Temporary. Destroy 1 year after the system is superseded by a new iteration or when no longer needed for agency/IT administrative purposes to ensure a continuity of security controls throughout the life of the system. DAA-GRS-2013-0006-0001
(l) System Access Records GRS 3.2 Item 31
a. Item 31—Systems requiring special accountability for access. Temporary. Destroy 6 years after the password is altered or the user account is terminated, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. DAA-GRS-2013-0006-0004.
(m) Input and Output Files GRS 5.1 Item 20
a. Item 20—Temporary. Destroy immediately after copying to a recordkeeping system or otherwise preserving, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. DAA-GRS-2016-0016-0002.
Access to TRACS is by password and user ID and is limited to authorized users. Role-based access levels or assignment roles are restricted to those with a need to know. When first gaining access to TRACS annually, all users must agree to the system's Rules of Behavior, which specify the handling of personal information and any physical records. Access to facilities containing and storing physical copies of this data is controlled by security protocol signed to limit access to authorized individuals.
Individuals requesting records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban and Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification, individuals should provide their full name, current address, and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
The HUD rule for contesting the content of any record pertaining to the individual by the individual concerned is published in 24 CFR 16.8 or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals requesting notification of records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification purposes, individuals should provide their full name, office or organization where assigned, if applicable, and current address and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
None.
Docket No. FR-7077-N-13, 88 FR 62813, September 13, 2023.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-5300 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech and communication disabilities.
To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit please visit:
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the second quarter of calendar year 2024.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from April 1, 2024 through June 30, 2024. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the second quarter of calendar year 2024) before the next report is published (the third quarter of calendar year 2024), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the second quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
HUD determined that the grantee met the statutory requirement that the property remain affordable to individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of area median income to the maximum extent practicable and for the longest feasible term. Based on the explanation provided by HfHI and because HUD exercised its policy discretion when it adopted the HOME standard for continued affordability as a means to determine compliance, HUD found good cause to waive this requirement in this instance.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
The National Manufactured Housing and Construction Safety Standards Act of 1974 (the Act) gives HUD authority to set standards for all homes that meet the definition of a “manufactured home” which is broad enough to include multifamily manufactured homes. Under the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, 24 CFR 3280 (“Standards”), a manufactured home must display a permanent label certifying to the best of the manufacturer's knowledge and belief that the manufactured home has been inspected and meets all applicable requirements of the Standards or it cannot be sold. See 24 CFR 3280.11, 3282.252(a)(1). HUD procedural and enforcement regulations, 24 CFR part 3282, have historically excluded multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes from the scope of the Standards even though the definition of “manufactured home” in both the Act and the Standards is broad enough to include such homes but for the explicit regulatory exclusion at 24 CFR 3282.8(l).
In April 2024, Cavco Industries, one of the largest builders of manufactured homes in the country, requested an Alternate Construction Approval Letter (“AC”) via the regulatory allowance set forth in 24 CFR 3282.14, Alternative Construction, indicating Cavco's desire to build a multi-dwelling unit home. A complete request package for the design and construction was received and reviewed by the Office of Manufactured Housing Programs. Cavco stated its desire to build a single home for display at the HUD-hosted 2024 Innovative Housing Showcase held in June 2024. In order for the home to be produced and sold bearing a HUD certification label, the regulatory waiver and an AC Letter were be necessary.
Moreover, the multi-dwelling unit manufactured home was showcased at the Innovative Housing Showcase in June 2024 where it served to inform and educate the general public on an innovative design along with the possibilities of construction practices for future manufactured homes. The home also exhibited an option available to address the nation's affordable housing crisis. The design and build process provided further proof-of-concept testing of the engineering and design/build production process education, adding to the knowledge bank first assembled in the 2010's. The regulatory waiver is good through September 26, 2024.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
• 24 CFR 983.202(b)(2) so that, during the temporary relocation period, housing assistance will be paid for units under contract and occupied by eligible families, and an addendum to the lease will be executed for the temporary units covering the period it takes to complete necessary health and safety improvements.
• 24 CFR 983.210(a) for the units that are unoccupied while lead abatement is being completed. Protections and procedures must be in place to minimize health and safety risks while work is being completed in unoccupied units.
• 24 CFR 983.210(c) so that the contract unit, for which the owner is receiving housing assistance, will be covered by any addendums subject to the temporary unit and ensure equal tenant protections during the period it takes to complete necessary health and safety improvements while the original tenant lease remains in place.
• 24 CFR 983.210(d) so that while tenants are temporarily relocated, they may continue to maintain residency at their leased unit.
• 24 CFR 983.351(a)(1) so that housing assistance payments shall be made for the months during which a contract unit is leased, or for a temporary unit, under a lease addendum, but that no housing assistance payments shall be made for units that are unoccupied.
• 24 CFR 983.260 so that during the temporary relocation period, families may occupy units that are larger than their leased unit and include accessibility features the family does not require.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Leasing Ordinance under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into agriculture, business, residential, wind and solar, public, religious, and recreational leases without further BIA approval.
BIA issued the approval on November 12, 2024.
Ms. Carla Clark, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal Leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or 25 CFR part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of availability.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, with the Coquille Indian Tribe (Tribe), City of Medford (City), Jackson County (County), and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) serving as cooperating agencies, intends to file a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in connection with the Tribe's application to transfer into trust approximately 2.4 acres for gaming purposes in the City of Medford, Jackson County, Oregon (Medford Site).
The Record of Decision for the proposed action will be issued on or after 30 days from the date the EPA publishes its Notice of Availability in the
By mail or hand delivery to: Bryan Mercier, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Region, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232. Please include your name, return address, and “FEIS Comments, Coquille Indian Tribe Fee-to-Trust and Casino Project” on the first page of your written comments.
Mr. Tobiah Mogavero, NEPA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Region, (435) 210-0509,
The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS was published by the BIA (87 FR 72505) and EPA (87 FR 72482) in the
The following alternatives are considered in the FEIS: (1) Proposed Project; (2) Phoenix Site; (3) Expansion of the Mill Casino; and (4) and No Action/No Development Alternative. The BIA has selected Alternative 1, the Proposed Project, as the Preferred Alternative as discussed in the FEIS.
Environmental issues addressed in the FEIS include geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, socioeconomic conditions (including environmental justice), transportation and circulation, land use, public services, noise, hazardous materials, aesthetics, cumulative effects, and indirect and growth inducing effects.
The information and analysis contained in the FEIS, as well as its evaluation and assessment of the Preferred Alternative, will assist the Department in its review of the issues presented in the Tribe's application. Selection of the Preferred Alternative does not indicate the Department's final decision because the Department must complete its review process. The Department's review process consists of (1) issuing the notice of availability of the FEIS; (2) issuing a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days following publication of a Notice of Availability of the FEIS by the EPA in the
This notice is published pursuant to section 1503.1 of the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500 through 1508) and section 46.305 of the Department of the Interior Regulations (43 CFR part 46), implementing the procedural requirements of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of availability.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, with the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serving as cooperating agencies, has filed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with the EPA in connection with the Koi Nation of Northern California's (Koi Nation) application for acquisition in trust by the United States of approximately 68.60 acres adjacent to the Town of Windsor, Sonoma County, California for gaming and other purposes.
The Record of Decision for the proposed action will be issued on or after 30 days from the date the EPA publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may send written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Chad Broussard, Environmental Protection Specialist, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820, Sacramento, California 95825; telephone: (916) 978-6165; email:
The BIA previously prepared an EA that analyzed the potential environmental effects of the proposed action. The EA was made available for public comments from September 12, 2023, through November 13, 2023, providing for a total of 60 days to submit comments on the EA. Upon consideration of the public and agency comments received, the BIA decided to prepare an EIS to further analyze the environmental effects which may result from the proposed action. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the
The following alternatives are considered in the FEIS: (A) Proposed Project; (B) Reduced Intensity Alternative; (C) Non-Gaming Alternative; and (D) No Action Alternative. The BIA has selected Alternative A, the Proposed Project as the Preferred Alternative as discussed in the FEIS.
Environmental issues addressed in the FEIS include land resources; water resources; air quality and climate change; noise; biological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; transportation and circulation; land use; hazardous materials and hazards; public services and utilities; socioeconomics; environmental justice; visual resources; and cumulative, indirect, and growth-inducing effects.
The information and analysis contained in the FEIS, as well as its evaluation and assessment of the Preferred Alternative, will assist the Department in its review of the issues presented in the Tribe's application. Selection of the Preferred Alternative does not indicate the Department's final decision because the Department must complete its review process. The Department's review process consists of (1) issuing the notice of availability of the FEIS; (2) issuing a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days following publication of a Notice of Availability of the FEIS by the EPA in the
This notice is published pursuant to section 1503.1 of the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) and section 46.305 of the Department of the Interior Regulations (43 CFR part 46), implementing the procedural requirements of the NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371,
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of request for public comments.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is developing a conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policy and corresponding term and condition for financial assistance awards (
Submit comments on or before January 21, 2025.
Comments may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Cara Whitehead, Director, Office of Grants Management, (202) 603-5735,
On December 17, 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published GAO-21-130,
DOI plans to develop a conflict-of-interest policy to define core terms, require financial assistance award recipients to maintain written and enforceable policies, and mandate covered individuals to identify, disclose, manage, reduce, or eliminate COI. The policy will address required actions by DOI in instances where the covered individual intentionally fails to disclose COI information and will include a term and condition which will be incorporated into the DOI financial assistance award terms and conditions. The DOI Office of Grants Management intends to implement the policy for all R&D competitive and non-competitive grant and cooperative agreements after obtaining and considering public comment.
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. If you submit a comment at
1. Salaries, royalties or other remuneration from the applicant organization;
2. Any ownership interests in the applicant organization if the organization is a commercial or for-profit entity;
3. Income from investment portfolio such as mutual funds and retirement account if the investigator does have direct control of the investment decisions in the portfolio;
4. Income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by a public or non-profit entity;
5. Income from service on advisory committees or review panels for a public or nonprofit entity;
6. An equity interest that, when aggregated for the covered individual and the covered individual's spouse and dependent children, meets both of the following tests: does not exceed $10,000 in value as determined through reference to public prices or other reasonable measures of fair market value, and does not represent more than a 5 percent ownership interest in any single entity;
7. An existing or offered loan or other financing to the covered individual or covered individual or covered individual's spouse and dependent children not exceeding $10,000 in the aggregate; or
8. Salaries, royalties or other payments that, when aggregated for the covered individual and the covered individual's spouse and dependent children, are not expected to exceed $10,000 during the prior 12-month period.
Each non-Federal Entity shall:
1. Maintain a current, written, enforced policy addressing COI which aligns with the DOI COI policy.
2. Ensure that each subrecipient develops and implements a policy which corresponds with the DOI COI policy if the non-Federal entity implements the DOI award through one or more subrecipients.
3. Designate a non-Federal entity official to solicit and review disclosures of significant financial interests from each covered individual who is planning to participate in, or is participating in, the project funded under a DOI award, including disclosures of subrecipient investigators.
4. Disclose to DOI any potential or actual conflict of interest and submit common disclosure forms for the
5. Require each investigator who is planning to participate in the DOI award to disclose to the non-Federal entity's designated official the investigator's significant financial interests (and those of the investigator's spouse and dependent children) no later than the time of application for the DOI award. Disclosures must be updated during the period of the award, either annually or upon learning of new reportable significant financial interests.
6. Require investigators engaged in subaward activities to comply with the COI policies of the pass-through entity.
Prior to the non-Federal entity's expenditure of any funds under a DOI award, the designated official of a non-Federal entity shall review all investigator disclosures of significant financial interests, identify whether any of the disclosures relate to the project funded under the DOI award, and determine whether an actual or potential COI exists. In instances where a COI may exist, the non-Federal entity must develop and implement a management plan which manages, reduces, or eliminates the COI. Conditions or restrictions of which one or more may be imposed to eliminate an actual or potential COI include but are not limited to:
1. Public disclosure of any COI (
2. For projects involving human subjects, disclosure of any COI directly to participants;
3. Appointment of an independent monitor or oversight committee capable of taking measures to protect the purpose, design, conduct, and reporting of the project against bias resulting from any COI;
4. Modification of the project plan;
5. Change of personnel or personnel responsibilities, or disqualification of personnel from participation in all or a portion of the project;
6. Reduction or elimination of the financial interest (
7. Severance of relationship(s) that create the COI.
DOI will review the
Prior to the non-Federal entity's expenditure of any funds under a DOI-funded project, the non-Federal entity must inform the DOI financial assistance officer identified in the award(s), in writing, of any COI which cannot be satisfactorily managed, mitigated, or eliminated in accordance with the non-Federal entity's policy.
Any conflict of interest identified by the non-Federal entity during the course of an ongoing project funded under a DOI award must be reported to DOI by the non-Federal entity within 60 days of the identified COI that cannot be managed, mitigated, or eliminated.
Notifications must include sufficient information to enable DOI to understand the nature and extent of the COI and assess the appropriateness of the non-Federal entity's management plan. The notification shall include, but is not limited to, the following information: (a) DOI award number; (b) Name of PI or contact PI; (c) Name of the investigator with the COI; (d) Name of the entity in which the investigator's interest has created a COI; (e) Nature of any applicable financial interest (
Upon notification to DOI of a COI which cannot be managed, mitigated, or eliminated by the non-Federal entity or upon DOI independently learning of this, the DOI financial assistance officer must report the COI to the DOI Office of the Solicitor, Branch of Acquisitions
DOI will consider and take appropriate actions, as necessary, such as requiring and enforcing a corrective action plan and imposing specific award conditions under 2 CFR 200.208 as necessary. As appropriate, DOI will also utilize available remedies for non-compliance and terminations provisions pursuant to 2 CFR 200.339 through 200.343, as appropriate under the circumstances. Available remedies include but are not limited to: (a) temporarily withholding payment; (b) disallowing all or part of the cost of an award activity; (c) wholly or partly suspending or terminating the award; (d) initiating referrals for consideration of suspension or debarment proceedings, and (e) withholding further Federal awards for the project or program.
DOI's COI financial assistance award term and condition will be revised as follows:
The DOI COI policy for financial assistance can be found at the Office of Grants Management website. This policy is applicable to all non-Federal entities applying for, or that receive, DOI funding by means of a financial assistance award (
The DOI COI policy establishes standards that provide a reasonable expectation that the design, conduct, and reporting of projects funded wholly or in part under DOI financial assistance awards will be free from bias resulting from financial conflict of interest or conflict of commitment. The recipient is subject to the requirements of the DOI COI policy and within each award for financial assistance, the recipient must certify that it is, compliant with all requirements in the DOI COI policy. The recipient must pass-through the requirements of the DOI COI policy to any subrecipient non-Federal entity.
The authority for this action is the Department's Financial Assistance Regulations at 2 CFR part 1402.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Central Yukon planning area of Alaska, located in Central and Northern Alaska. The State Director, Alaska, signed the ROD on November 12, 2024, which constitutes the decision of the BLM and makes the Approved RMP effective immediately.
The State Director, Alaska, signed the ROD/Approved RMP on November 12, 2024.
The ROD/Approved RMP is available online at the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Register at
BLM Fairbanks District Office, 222 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709, telephone: (907) 474-2200.
BLM Alaska Public Information Center, James M. Fitzgerald Federal Building, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513, telephone: (907) 271-5960.
Alaska Resources Library & Information Services, 3211 Providence Drive, Suite 111, Anchorage, AK 99508, telephone: (907) 272-7547.
Printed copies can be provided upon request by contacting the BLM Alaska Public Information Center listed above.
A copy of the Protest Resolution Report is available at:
Melinda Bolton, BLM Alaska State Office; telephone: (907) 271-3342, email:
The Approved RMP replaces the Utility Corridor RMP (1991), the original Central Yukon RMP (1986), and portions of the Southwest Management Framework Plan (1981), and provides RMP-level decisions for unplanned lands west of Fairbanks. The Approved RMP provides a consolidated direction under one RMP to address land and resource use and development on BLM-managed public lands within the planning area.
The Approved RMP and ROD set forth a comprehensive framework for future public land management actions in the Central Yukon region of Alaska. The planning area consists of about 55.7 million acres of land, including approximately 13.3 million acres of public lands administered by the BLM Central Yukon Field Office.
The Approved RMP will guide management of these public lands for the next 15 to 20 years for the benefit of current and future generations as part of the BLM's multiple-use mission. This planning effort is updating management decisions for public land uses and resources, including subsistence resources, mineral exploration and development, and recreation.
The Central Yukon Proposed RMP/Final EIS evaluated six alternatives for managing the planning area. Alternatives B, C1, C2 (preferred alternative from the Draft RMP/EIS), and D were developed using input from the public, Tribes, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies. Alternative E is the BLM's Approved RMP. This alternative was developed after considering public comments on the Draft RMP/EIS and provided in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act section 810 hearings, internal BLM discussions, government-to-government consultation, and cooperating agency input.
The Approved RMP does not recommend full revocation of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 17(d)(1) Public Land Orders (PLOs) but does recommend revoking the withdrawals in part for the limited purpose of allotment selection by Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans under Section 1119 of the Dingell Act. The Approved RMP also designates 21 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or Research Natural Areas, encompassing approximately 3,601,000 acres (see Appendix M of the Approved RMP).
The BLM provided the Proposed RMP/Final EIS for a 30-day public protest period starting on April 26, 2024, and received six letters containing valid protest issues. The Assistant Director addressed the protests and issued a Protest Resolution Report (see
The BLM provided the Proposed RMP/Final EIS to the Governor of Alaska for a 60-day Governor's consistency review on April 26, 2024. The Governor's Office identified concerns and potential inconsistencies between the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and State and local plans, policies, and programs. The BLM considered the concerns and potential inconsistencies and responded on August 13, 2024. While the BLM determined that the Proposed RMP/Final EIS was consistent with the State's land use plans, policies, and programs, it did add the three State plans to the Approved RMP, Appendix C. The additions were made in the interest of open discussion, were minor, and did not represent a change requiring the BLM to provide the public with an opportunity to comment as discussed in 43 CFR 1610.2(f)(5) and 1610.5-1. On September 13, 2024, the Governor of Alaska appealed the State Director's decision not to accept the State's recommendations to the BLM Director. After careful review and consideration, the BLM Director determined that the Alaska State Director properly considered all applicable State and local plans, policies, and programs in the Central Yukon planning effort, and that no changes are necessary to provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the State's interest. The Director's response to the State of Alaska's Appeal was transmitted to State Officials on November 12, 2024, prior to approval of the ROD. Consistent with the BLM regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2 the Director's Response will also be published in the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 21, 2025.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room 1544-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
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 International Semiconductor Group Co., Ltd. on November 18, 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 wireless communication devices and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Dell Technologies Inc. of Round Rock, TX; Dell Products L.P. of Round Rock, TX; Dell (Chengdu) Co. Ltd. of China; HP, Inc. of Palo Alto, CA; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. of Spring, TX; Lenovo Group Limited of China; and Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, NC. 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 requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3785”) 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.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-716-719 and 731-TA-1683-1687 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of epoxy resins from China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, provided for in subheading 3907.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to sold at less-than-fair-value and subsidized by the governments of China, India, and Taiwan. In addition, Commerce has made a preliminary negative determination of subsidization in the countervailing duty investigation of epoxy resins from South Korea.
November 13, 2024.
Alejandro Orozco (202-205-3177), 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 (
Although Commerce has preliminarily determined that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of epoxy resins from South Korea, for purposes of efficiency the Commission hereby waives rule 207.21(b)
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2025. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on January 27, 2025. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective October 4, 2023, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by the U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition (consisting of Alexandria Extrusion Company, Alexandria, Minnesota; APEL Extrusions Inc., Coburg, Oregon; Bonnell Aluminum, Newnan, Georgia; Brazeway, Adrian, Michigan; Custom Aluminum Products, South Elgin, Illinois; Extrudex Aluminum, North Jackson, Ohio; International Extrusions, Garden City, Michigan; Jordan Aluminum Company, Memphis, Tennessee; M-D Building Products, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Merit Aluminum, Corona, California; MI Metals, Oldsmar, Florida; Pennex Aluminum, Wellsville, Pennsylvania; Tower Extrusions, Olney, Texas; and Western Extrusions, Carrollton, Texas) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of aluminum extrusions from China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and that imports of aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam were sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on November 18, 2024. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5560 (November 2024), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on November 15, 2024, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting comments from the public and interested government agencies only.
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).
The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain active matrix organic light-emitting diode display panels and modules for mobile devices, and components thereof imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents Injured Gadgets, LLC; Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc.; Phone LCD Parts LLC; Parts4LCD; Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Captain Mobile Parts, Inc.; Group Vertical, LLC; Sourcely Plus, LLC; Mengtor Inc.; Electronics Universe, Inc, d/b/a Fixez.com and Repairs Universe, Inc.; LCTech International Inc. d/b/a/
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on November 15, 2024. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended 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 recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on December 18, 2024.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1351 Remand”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. Government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined to find Bharat Bazar Inc. (“Bharat Bazaar”); Coconut Hill Inc. d/b/a Coconut Hill (“Coconut Hill”); Organic Ingredients Inc. d/b/a Namaste Plaza Indian Super Market (“Organic Ingredients”); and New India Bazar Inc. d/b/a New India Bazar (“New India”) (collectively, “Enforcement Respondents”) to have violated the General Exclusion Order (“GEO”) in this investigation. The Commission has also determined to issue cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) against each of these four defaulting Enforcement Respondents. The investigation is terminated.
Paul Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2043. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted the original investigation on December 1, 2020, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Meenaxi Enterprise Inc. (“Meenaxi”) of Edison, New Jersey. 85 FR 77237-38 (Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain chocolate milk powder and packaging thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,206,026 (“the '026 mark”). The Commission's notice of investigation named several respondents, including but not limited to Bharat Bazar of Union City, California; Coconut Hill of Sunnyvale, California; Organic Food Inc. d/b/a Namaste Plaza Indian Super Market (“Organic Food”) of Fremont, California; and New India of San Jose, California.
In the underlying investigation, all respondents were found in default.
On remand, the current chief administrative law judge (“CALJ”) issued Order No. 18, granting Meenaxi's unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to (i) substitute Organic Food with proposed respondent Organic Ingredients of San Diego, California; (ii) correct the address of respondent New India; (iii) correct the address of respondent Bharat Bazar; and (iv) supplement the complaint with Exhibits 9-a, 9-b, and 9-c, concerning Organic Food and/or Organic Ingredients. Order No. 18 at 1-5 (Mar. 11, 2022),
The CALJ conducted remand proceedings as to Organic Ingredients and New India with respect to service of the amended complaint and notice of investigation, and upon the failure of these respondents to respond to the amended complaint and notice of investigation, the CALJ ordered them to respond to an order to show cause why they should not be found in default.
On June 13, 2022, Meenaxi again moved for summary determination of violation by the Defaulting Respondents and requested a GEO. On July 6, 2022, OUII filed a response supporting the motion.
On August 3, 2022, the CALJ issued a remand ID (“RID”) (Order No. 27), granting the second motion for summary determination and finding a violation of section 337 with respect to the '026 mark. The RID found that all Defaulting Respondents met the importation requirement and that Meenaxi satisfied the domestic industry requirement.
On September 19, 2022, the Commission determined not to review the RID.
On November 9, 2023, the Commission determined to institute an enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate alleged violations of the GEO by the four Enforcement Respondents.
On January 10, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued an order directing the Enforcement Respondents to show cause why they should not be found in default and why judgment should not be rendered against them for failing to respond to the enforcement complaint and notice of investigation.
On March 14, 2024, the Commission determined that the four Enforcement Respondents were in default.
On August 16, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 9), granting Meenaxi's motion and recommending issuance of the requested CDOs. The ALJ concluded that “the unrebutted evidence summarized below demonstrates that the Enforcement Respondents have imported and/or sold after importation chocolate milk powder products bearing the `Bournvita' label” in violation of the GEO. ID at 16-17. The ID noted that Meenaxi alleges that the Enforcement Respondents have violated the GEO by offering for sale, selling, advertising, and aiding and abetting the sale for Cadbury's “BOURNVITA” products.
On August 19, 2024, the Commission issued a notice soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation of the GEO, specifically, CDOs against the four Enforcement Respondents: (1) Bharat Bazaar; (2) Coconut Hill; (3) Organic Ingredients; and (4) New India. 89 FR 68203-04 (Aug. 23, 2024). No comments were received in response to the notice.
On October 2, 2024, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the ID's findings that the Enforcement Respondents have violated the GEO. 89 FR 81547-49 (Oct. 8, 2024). The Commission requested briefing from the parties on (1) whether the sale of infringing products imported before the issuance of a GEO but sold in the United States after the issuance of that order constitutes a violation of the GEO; (2) whether a complainant must provide evidence of importation of infringing products after the date on which the GEO issued in order to establish a violation of a GEO in an enforcement proceeding; and (3) whether 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1) applies to allegations of a violation of a GEO in an enforcement proceeding involving defaulting enforcement respondents.
On October 16, 2024, Meenaxi and OUII each filed submissions in response to the Commission's notice, arguing that the public interest does not preclude issuance of the requested CDOs. In its response, Meenaxi requested the same bond as previously issued in the underlying investigation during the period of Presidential review pursuant to section 337(j) (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). No other party filed a response.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the parties' submissions, the Commission has
The Commission's vote on this determination took place on November 18, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.
Notice of public feedback period.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking public feedback on a draft memorandum titled
Additionally, OMB is preparing the first iteration of a U.S. Federal Public Participation and Community Engagement Toolkit to help Federal agencies better plan, implement, and assess the impact of participation and engagement. OMB also requests feedback on the draft outline of this toolkit.
The full text of the draft memorandum and the full draft outline of the toolkit are available for review at
Feedback must be provided on or before November 29, 2024.
In an effort to improve accessibility, OMB is offering multiple options to provide feedback.
Individuals and organizations who respond to this request may be contacted for clarification, related discussions, events, or surveys.
Please email the Office of Management and Budget at
In developing these draft materials, OMB considered feedback received from the public and Federal agencies through OMB's Request for Information on Methods and Leading Practices for Advancing Public Participation and Community Engagement With the Federal Government, 89 FR 19,885 (Mar. 20, 2024),
The proposed memorandum on participation and engagement would complement guidance from OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on
The toolkit would centralize materials to help agencies engage the American people, including individuals from underserved communities, in ways that better meet agency and community needs and priorities. The toolkit would also build on prior Federal efforts, such as the
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request establishment and clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by January 21, 2025 to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; or send email to
A new system of records, NSF-80, titled Education and Training Application Data System (ETAP), was published in the
ETAP is designed to collect data on applicants and participants in NSF-funded opportunities, thereby reducing the burden on Principal Investigators (PIs) and applicants while enhancing NSF's ability to monitor its education and workforce development programs and conduct evaluations of their impact. PIs of NSF awards can use the ETAP system to recruit prospective participants for a variety of NSF-funded opportunities, including research experiences, fellowships, scholarships, internships, teaching assistantships, dissertation grants, summer boot camps, and more. The centralized platform provided by ETAP allows potential applicants to easily discover and apply for these NSF-funded programs aimed at STEM professional development and growth.
The data collected through the system typically falls into three categories: (1) opportunity information (provided by PIs creating opportunities for applicants), (2) application information (provided by applicants applying for NSF-funded opportunities), and (3) admissions decisions and participation (provided by PIs confirming participants funded through NSF award funds). In addition to the information collected via the ETAP system, other collections are necessary for continuous improvement and outcome tracking: (1) usability and satisfaction feedback (to gather input for planning and assessing system enhancements), and (2) tracking educational outcomes (to obtain educational outcomes from administrative data from the National Student Clearinghouse, posing no burden to participants or PIs).
9:30 a.m. EDT, December 10, 2024.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
Candi Bing at (202) 590-8384 or by email at
The public may view it through a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “Upcoming Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
The National Transportation Safety Board is holding this meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
On September 27, 2024, Cboe 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”),
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 2, 2024, the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (“CAT LLC”), on behalf of the following parties to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”):
This order institutes proceedings, under Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,
Rule 613(j)(9) of Regulation NMS and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan define the term “reportable event” as including, but not limited to, the original receipt or origination, modification, cancellation, routing, and execution (in whole or in part) of an order, and receipt of a routed order.
Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan both require that the Industry Members and the Participants capture and report quotes and orders that meet the definition of a CAT reportable event, with no exclusion for verbal quotes and orders.
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to state that the activities subject to the July 2023 Exemptive Order (the “Exempt Activities”) shall not be reportable as Participant Data or Recorded Industry Member Data that Participants and Industry Members, as applicable, must record and report to the Central Repository.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of SEC Rule 613 or the CAT NMS Plan, the following categories of data shall not be reportable to the Central Repository under Section 6.3(d):
(i) floor broker verbal announcements of firm orders on an exchange that are otherwise reported as systematized orders;
(ii) market maker verbal announcements of firm quotes on an exchange trading floor;
(iii) telephone discussions between an Industry Member and a client that may involve firm bid and offer communications; and
(iv) unstructured electronic and verbal communications that are not currently captured by Industry Member order management or execution systems (
CAT LLC states that the Verbal Quotes Amendment is intended to have an effect similar to permanent incorporation into the CAT NMS Plan of the existing Commission-approved temporary exemptive relief within the July 2023 Exemptive Order, without the added conditions to relief.
CAT LLC states that the Verbal Quotes Amendment is merited because of the impact on overall CAT costs of requiring reporting of the Exempt Activities.
CAT LLC also states that no technological developments have occurred that would make reporting the Exempt Activities cost-effective.
CAT LLC states that these significant costs “would not provide enough value from a regulatory and surveillance perspective to outweigh their substantial costs” because most of the relevant data that could be gleaned from the Exempt Activities is already gathered in some other form in CAT.
CAT LLC states therefore that the ultimate regulatory value-add of expanding the existing CAT reporting to include the Exempt Activities is minimal given the scope of the data associated with the Exempt Activities that is already reported.
The Commission received one comment letter in connection with the Verbal Quotes Amendment.
FIF states that if the Commission does not provide permanent relief for reporting the Exempt Activities, it would be necessary for the Commission to: (i) provide support for this position based on Commission precedent;
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,
Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS provides that the Commission “shall approve a national market system plan or proposed amendment to an effective national market system plan, with such changes or subject to such conditions as the Commission may deem necessary or appropriate, if it finds that such plan or amendment is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the [Exchange] Act.”
• whether, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, the Participants have demonstrated that the Verbal Quotes Amendment is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act;
• whether, and if so how, the Verbal Quotes Amendment would affect efficiency, competition or capital formation.
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the plan participants that filed the NMS plan filing.”
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the Verbal Quotes Amendment. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the Verbal Quotes Amendment is consistent with the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, or any other provisions of the CAT NMS Plan. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Participants' statements in support of the Verbal Quotes Amendment, and to consider the impact of the Verbal Quotes Amendment on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the Verbal Quotes Amendment.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the Verbal Quotes Amendment should be approved or disapproved by December 13, 2024. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 27, 2024. 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 10.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4830-DR), dated September 30, 2024.
Issued on November 13, 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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia, dated September 30, 2024, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to January 7, 2025.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice; request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) will submit the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, on or after the date of publication of this notice. SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the collection of information.
Submit comments on or before December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain information including a copy of the forms and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Officer, Curtis Rich, at (202) 205-7030, or
Section 1102 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, authorized SBA to guarantee loans made by banks or other financial institutions under a temporary program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program” (PPP). These loans were available to eligible small businesses, certain non-profit organizations, veterans' organizations, Tribal business concerns, independent contractors, and self-employed individuals adversely impacted by the COVID-19 Emergency. SBA's authority to guarantee PPP loans expired on August 8, 2020. On December 27, 2020, SBA received reauthorization under the Economic Aid Act, Public Law 116-260, to resume guaranteeing PPP loans through March 31, 2021. The Economic Aid Act also allowed certain eligible borrowers that previously received a PPP loan to receive a second draw PPP loan (“Second Draw PPP Loan Program”) and amended certain other PPP statutory provisions. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act, Public Law 117-2, was enacted, amending various PPP statutory provisions. On March 30, 2021, the PPP Extension Act of 2021 was enacted, extending the SBA's PPP program authority through June 30, 2021.
This information collection is used for the Second Draw PPP Loan Program. This approval is set to expire on November 30, 2024. Although SBA's program authority has expired, this information collection is still needed. Therefore, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, SBA is publishing this notice as a prerequisite to seeking OMB's approval to use this information collection beyond November 30, 2024.
SBA invites the public to submit comments, including specific and detailed suggestions on ways to improve the collection and reduce the burden on respondents. Commenters should also address (i) whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of SBA's functions, including whether it has any practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden on those who are required to respond.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Mariana: Velázquez's Portrait of a Queen from the Museo Nacional del Prado” at the Norton Simon Museum of Art, Pasadena, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice; correction.
This is a correction to a notice that was published on November 14, 2024.The Docket Number in the initial submission was incorrect. It was published as “2120-0076”. The correct Docket Number is 2021-0076.
Written comments should be submitted by December 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Toni Main-Valentin by email at:
In compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), all of our data collection will be 100% electronic using an online form; Applicants will be asked to complete the survey just before they exit the system. The AVIATOR Customer Satisfaction Survey is designed to identify potential problems with FAA's automated staffing solutions as well as to evaluate customer satisfaction with the on-line application process. The information is not gathered by any other collection. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to improve the AVIATOR system's overall performance and customer satisfaction without utilizing the survey as a performance measurement tool.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 23, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Kim Merchant by email at:
The purpose of the BEYOND program is for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to work with State, local and Tribal (SLT) governments toward full, safe integration of UAS into the national airspace system (NAS). There are eight SLT governments in the BEYOND program currently. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, section 920, enables the FAA to expand the BEYOND program to include additional SLT governments.
BEYOND participants and other select proponents submit operational data, including monthly flight data, Automated Data Service Provider (ADSP) monthly data, and anomaly data. The purpose of these submissions is to monitor the safety of the flights and the effectiveness of the safety mitigations in place, and inform policy and decision-making related to the risks associated with operations involving command and control (C2) links, detect and avoid (DAA) capabilities, ADSP reliability, anomaly detection, and a host of other categories, to solve challenges in enabling UAS beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations.
1. State, Local, Tribal, or Territorial Governments—BEYOND Lead Participants.
2. Business or other for-profit—Team members of the BEYOND Lead Participants and proponents with reporting conditions and limitations in their operational approvals.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and its expected burden. On August 5, 2024, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR. FRA received no comments in response to the notice.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 23, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages.
Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days' notice for public comment. Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b) and (c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Alex Sedlacek, 202-366-1031, Division of Sealift Operations and Emergency Response, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
A 60-day
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted on June 7, 2023, by Kimberlyn Hearns (the petitioner) to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests that the Agency initiate an investigation into alleged remote attacks to the vehicle electrical control system associated with a variety of reported electrical malfunctions that render the petitioner's Model Year 2019 Toyota Yaris vehicle (subject vehicle) allegedly unusable. On August 30, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition DP23-004 to evaluate the petitioner's request. After conducting a technical review of the petitioner's submissions, seeing no other complaints for 2019 Toyota Yaris vehicles related to the types of “remote attacks” described by the petitioner, and reviewing information provided by Toyota in response to an Agency request for information regarding the 2019 Yaris CAN bus, NHTSA has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to pursue further investigation. Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition.
Mr. Tariq Bond, Vehicle Defects Division—D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-5472. Email:
Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or an item of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR 552.1. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review of the petition, material submitted with the petition, and any additional information. 49 U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR 552.6. The technical review may consist solely of a review of information already in the possession of the Agency or it may include the collection of information from the motor vehicle manufacturer or other sources. After conducting the technical review and considering appropriate factors, which may include, but are not limited to, allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, and the likelihood of success in litigation that might arise from a determination of noncompliance or a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the Agency will grant or deny the petition.
In a letter dated June 7, 2023, Kimberlyn Hearns (the petitioner) submitted a petition attributing electrical malfunctions of his 2019 Toyota Yaris (subject vehicle) to remote attacks by unknown parties targeted on the subject vehicle's Controller Area Network (CAN bus).
NHTSA has based its decision on a review of the material cited by the petitioner in his petition, information submitted by Toyota in response to the Agency's request, and other pertinent information in NHTSA's databases. Staff from NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) supported the review at all stages.
The subject vehicle is a Model Year (MY) 2019 Toyota Yaris LE equipped with a 1.5L I4 gasoline engine. According to a vehicle history report, the subject vehicle has only been owned by one person (the petitioner), started receiving service in August of 2019, and has not experienced any reported
In mid-November of 2022, with 46,136 miles of service,
Over the ensuing two weeks, and approximately 700 miles, the petitioner reported several instances of engine power loss, malfunctioning indicator lights, and a head unit delayed start malfunction, leading to service at a different Toyota dealer in early December 2022. That dealer's invoice reported that no problem had been identified after several service checks, inspection of the ECU wiring, and after approximately 30 miles of test driving over a two-day period. At the time of its release from this dealership, the invoice reported that the subject vehicle had an odometer reading of 47,009 miles. Toyota reported that the dealership had also contacted its Technical Assistance Center for further guidance.
The vehicle history report indicates that the subject vehicle traveled only 44 miles over the following three months, returning to its regular servicing dealership in late March 2023, about a week after another report from the petitioner of flashing warning lights and repeated horn activation while the petitioner was inside his house. The petitioner reported that this mid-March incident coincided with a suspicious vehicle driving by his house. The petitioner also stated that in late March, a service visit to his regular servicing dealership included the removal of an aftermarket vehicle security system manufactured by Rockledge Securities.
No further service records from Toyota or the vehicle history report appear after March 27, 2023. The petitioner reported eleven instances of continued malfunctions from March 30 through June 3, 2023 related to horn activation, inoperative key-fob, no-start condition, and fuel gauge inaccuracies. The petitioner also reported that two of these malfunctions coincided with suspicious vehicles driving by his house. The petitioner then began documenting various additional events, including a no-start condition followed by a jump-start, inaccurate/slowly responding fuel gauge, intermittent CEL, “nearly unreadable” instrument cluster, an inability to turn off the engine, and inoperative fan, wipers, and signals. Petitioner also cited attempts to maintain the battery state of charge by idling the subject vehicle in his driveway. At the time of the petitioner's last contact with NHTSA in August 2023, the petitioner reported that his subject vehicle was unusable, despite efforts to maintain the charge of its battery.
Although the petitioner asserts that his vehicle is under remote electronic attack, and stipulates that the subject vehicle is not defective; the Agency is still treating the submitted document as a part of a defect petition as initially requested.
• This vehicle is not equipped with a cellular communication module; therefore, it is not capable of communicating with a cellular network.
• This vehicle's multimedia system is capable of connecting a cellular phone to support hands-free features, such as hands-free calling and streaming audio from the phone.
• This vehicle does not have advanced connectivity features, such as Apple CarPlay or Android Auto.
• The multimedia system, which includes Bluetooth connectivity, operates on a local CAN bus network dedicated communication for the vehicle's multimedia system.
ODI reviewed complaint data and information in NHTSA's databases concerning all 2019 Toyota Yaris vehicles and identified no other cyberattack allegations similar to those reported by the petitioner. This body of information also did not show any potential trend of similar electrical or power loss symptoms regardless of reported cause.
The symptoms reported by the petitioner could not be duplicated by the Toyota dealer in three separate service visits and may have originated from any number of sources. Beyond these service visits, the effects of other influences such as the Rockledge aftermarket security system (including its installation and removal), and battery maintenance via external charger or driveway idling cannot be assessed at this time. Toyota has reported that difficulty communicating with the petitioner
• Notwithstanding the conditions cited by the petitioner, the 2019 Toyota Yaris vehicle lacks the external cellular connectivity needed to make it vulnerable to remote cyberattacks.
• The subject vehicle's Bluetooth connectivity ability is limited to multimedia and hands-free communication.
• The Agency has uncovered no other evidence of related cyberattacks or similar symptoms in 2019 Toyota Yaris vehicles.
Accordingly, the Agency is denying the petition. As with all potential motor vehicle safety risks, NHTSA will continue to review any new information or incidents as they are submitted to the Agency.
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.
This action was issued on November 19, 2024. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On November 19, 2024, OFAC determined that the persons identified below meet one or more of the criteria for the imposition of sanctions set forth in section 1(a)-(c) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059). OFAC has selected to impose blocking sanctions pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 on the persons identified below.
1. CASTANEDA MEZA, Juan Carlos (Latin: CASTAÑEDA MEZA, Juan Carlos) (a.k.a. “BONQUES BROTHERS”; a.k.a. “CALOCHO”), Mexico; DOB 01 Sep 1977; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. CAMJ770901HNTSZN05 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
2. CASTANEDA MEZA, Giovanni (Latin: CASTAÑEDA MEZA, Giovanni) (a.k.a. “BONQUES BROTHERS”; a.k.a. “BONQUES, Vanni”), Mexico; DOB 08 Aug 1987; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. CAMG870808HNTSZV07 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
3. CASTANEDA MEZA, Ivan Atzayacatl (Latin: CASTAÑEDA MEZA, Ivan Atzayacatl) (a.k.a. “BONQUES BROTHERS”; a.k.a. “BONQUES, Axa”), Mexico; DOB 12 Sep 1984; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. CAMI840912HNTSZV09 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
4. CASTELLANOS MEZA, Roberto (a.k.a. “BONQUES BROTHERS”; a.k.a. “BONQUES, Beto”), Mexico; DOB 06 Jun 1975; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. CAMR750606HNTSZB00 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
5. ARIAS PONCE, Erandiny Jazmin, Mexico; DOB 29 Sep 1990; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; C.U.R.P. AIPE900929MNTRNR09 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
6. CASTILLO PEINADO, Araceli (a.k.a. “LA DONA” (Latin: “LA DOÑA”)), Mexico; DOB 04 Aug 1982; POB Chihuahua, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; C.U.R.P. CAPA820804MCHSNR11 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
7. CASTILLO LOPEZ, Jose Adrian (a.k.a. MEDINA PEREZ, Juan Manual; a.k.a. SALAZAR SALDIVAR, Adrian; a.k.a. “CHEO”; a.k.a. “FRIAS, Adrian”; a.k.a. “GONZALES, Adrian”), Mexico; DOB 21 Dec 1975; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. CALA751221HNTSPD07 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
8. CASTRO ALVAREZ, Jose Sinue, Mexico; DOB 12 Sep 1976; POB Sinaloa, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. CAAS760912HSLSLN03 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
9. NAVARRO QUEZADA, Luis Alonso (a.k.a. ESTRADA ARIAS, Josue Francisco; a.k.a. “MOJARRAS”; a.k.a. “QUEZADA, Luis”), Mexico; DOB 18 Apr 1986; POB Nayarit, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. NAQL860418HNTVZS05 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of contributing to, the
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the Advisory Committee on U.S. Outlying Areas and Freely Associated States (Committee) will hold a hybrid meeting (in-person and virtual) on December 10-12, 2024, at the Hyatt Regency Guam, Tumon, Guam. Public participation will commence as follows:
Meeting sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting a tour of VA facilities. Per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), tours of VA facilities are closed to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on covered Veterans. The term “covered Veteran” is defined as a Veteran residing in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands of the United States, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The Committee advises on improving VA programs and services to serve covered Veterans better.
On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, the Committee will convene an open session from 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ChST at the Hyatt Regency Guam. The agenda will include opening remarks by the Committee Chairman and Committee member introductions; welcoming remarks from the Deputy Executive Director of Outreach, Transition, and Economic Development; a briefing on the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) efforts to assist covered Veterans, family members, caregivers, and survivors; remarks by the VA Chief of Staff; a briefing conducted by the Advisory Committee Management Office; a review of the Committee charter and ethics; a briefing on the Veterans Health Administration initiatives and updates; a briefing regarding the Foreign Medical Program; an overview of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act; and a briefing from the Network Director—VISN 21 Sierra Pacific.
On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, the Committee will convene an open session from 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ChST at the Hyatt Regency Guam where the Committee will receive information about the Veterans Experience Office, the role of the VBA regional offices, prescription drug information, travel funding, and telehealth. From 9:15-11:00 a.m. ChST and from 12:00-2:00 p.m. ChST the Committee will reconvene a closed session as it tours local VA facilities. Per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), tours of VA facilities are closed to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information. The Committee will reconvene an open session from 2:00-3:30 p.m. ChST at the Hyatt Regency Guam for a daily closeout with updates and reminders.
On Thursday, December 12, 2024, the Committee will convene an open session from 6:00-10:30 a.m. ChST at the Hyatt Regency Guam. The Committee will discuss observations from the tours of the VA facilities and receive briefings from the National Cemetery Administration and the Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. Additionally, the Committee will receive public comments before the final close-out session.
The public is invited to address the Committee during the public comment period from 8:15-8:45 a.m. ChST on Thursday, December 12, 2024. Individuals will be allowed 3-5 minutes to speak. Additionally, individuals who wish to provide public comments are invited to submit a one-page summary of their comments no later than Monday, December 2, 2024, for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's review to Mr. Bernard Johnson at
Members of the public may attend open sessions of the Committee meeting in person or virtually. Approximately 10 seats will be available for public stakeholders in attendance. The limited number of seats is due to the meeting room's capacity. Members of the public who wish to attend virtually can do so by dialing into the Microsoft Teams conference information below. Attendees requiring reasonable accommodations should notify Mr. Bernard Johnson at
You can dial 205-235-3524 and enter the access code below. Access code: 999 828 33#
You can dial 205-235-3524 and enter the access code below. Access code: 829 539 449#
You can dial 205-235-3524 and enter the access code below. Access code: 591 775 265#
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice.
As required by law, VA is hereby giving notice of COLA in certain benefit rates and income limitations. These COLAs affect the Pension and Parents' DIC programs. The rate of the adjustment is tied to the increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2023, as announced by the Social Security Administration (SSA). SSA has announced an increase of 3.2%.
The COLAs became effective on December 1, 2023.
Gabrielle Mancuso, Lead Management and Program Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202-632-8863. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312 and Public Law 95-588 sec. 306, VA is required to increase the benefit rates and income limitations in the Pension and Parents' DIC programs by the same percentage, and effective the same date, as increases in the benefit amounts payable under Title II of the Social Security Act. VA is required to publish the increased rates and income limitations in the
The Social Security Administration announced a 3.2% COLA increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2023. Therefore, applying the same percentage and rounding in accordance with 38 CFR 3.29, the following increased rates and income limitations for the VA Pension and Parents' DIC programs became effective December 1, 2023:
(1) Veterans permanently and totally disabled (38 U.S.C. 1521):
Veteran with no dependents, $16,551.
Veteran with one dependent, $21,674.
For each additional dependent, $2,831.
(2) Veterans in need of aid and attendance (38 U.S.C. 1521):
Veteran with no dependents, $27,609.
Veteran with one dependent, $32,729.
For each additional dependent, $2,831.
(3) Veterans who are housebound (38 U.S.C. 1521):
Veteran with no dependents, $20,226.
Veteran with one dependent, $25,348.
For each additional dependent, $2,831.
(4) Two Veterans married to one another, combined rates (38 U.S.C. 1521):
Neither Veteran in need of aid and attendance or housebound, $21,674.
Either Veteran in need of aid and attendance, $32,729.
Both Veterans in need of aid and attendance, $43,791.
Either Veteran housebound, $25,348.
Both Veterans housebound, $29,021.
One Veteran housebound and one Veteran in need of aid and attendance, $36,395.
For each dependent child, $2,831.
(5) Net worth limit under 38 CFR 3.274(a):
For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2023, is $155,356.
(6) Monthly Penalty Rate under 38 CFR 3.276(e)(1):
The monthly penalty rate is $2,727.
Mexican border period and World War I Veterans: The applicable maximum annual rate payable to a Mexican border period or World War I Veteran under this table shall be the applicable rate under paragraph (1)-(4), increased by $3,762. (38 U.S.C. 1521(g)).
(7) Surviving spouse alone and with a child or children of the deceased Veteran in custody of the surviving spouse (38 U.S.C. 1541):
Surviving spouse alone, $11,102.
Surviving spouse and one child in his or her custody, $14,529.
For each additional child in his or her custody, $2,831.
(8) Surviving spouses in need of aid and attendance (38 U.S.C. 1541 and 1536):
Surviving spouse alone, $17,743.
Surviving spouse with one child in custody, $21,166.
Surviving Spouse of Spanish-American War Veteran alone, $18,461.
Surviving Spouse of Spanish-American War Veteran with one child in custody, $21,807.
For each additional child in his or her custody, $2,831.
(9) Surviving spouses who are housebound (38 U.S.C. 1541):
Surviving spouse alone, $13,568.
Surviving spouse and one child in his or her custody, $16,989.
For each additional child in his or her custody, $2,831.
(10) Surviving child alone (38 U.S.C. 1542), $2,831.
(11) Net worth limit under 38 CFR 3.274(a):
For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2023, is $155,356.
(12) Monthly Penalty Rate under 38 CFR 3.276(e)(1):
If we determine you're subject to a pension penalty, we wouldn't pay pension benefits during the penalty period.
Veteran or surviving spouse with no dependents, $18,824 (Pub. L. 95-588 sec. 306(a)).
Veteran in need of aid and attendance with no dependents, $19,502 (38 U.S.C. 1521(d) as in effect on December 31, 1978).
Veteran or surviving spouse with one or more dependents, $25,303 (Pub. L. 95-588 sec. 306(a)).
Veteran in need of aid and attendance with one or more dependents, $25,978 (38 U.S.C. 1521(d) as in effect on December 31, 1978).
Child (no entitled Veteran or surviving spouse), $15,393 (Pub. L. 95-588 sec. 306(a)).
Spouse income exclusion (38 CFR 3.262), $6,013 (Pub. L. 95-588 sec. 306(a)(2)(B)).
Veteran or surviving spouse without dependents or an entitled child, $16,485 (Pub. L. 95-588 sec. 306(b)).
Veteran or surviving spouse with one or more dependents, $23,757 (Pub. L. 95-588 sec. 306(b)).
DIC shall be paid monthly to parents of a deceased Veteran in the following amounts (38 U.S.C. 1315):
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $0.00 but not more than $800, the $799 monthly rate shall not be reduced.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $800 but not more than $10,725, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $10,725, the monthly rate will not be reduced.
No Parents' DIC is payable under this table if annual income exceeds $18,824.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $0 but not more than $800, the $579 monthly rate shall not be reduced.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $800 but not more than $7,975, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $7,975, the monthly rate shall not be reduced.
No Parents' DIC is payable under this table if annual income exceeds $18,824.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $0 but not more than $1,000, the $546 monthly rate shall not be reduced.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,000 but not more than $1,100, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,100 but not more than $1,200, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,200 but not more than $1,300, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,300 but not more than $1,600, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,600 but not more than $1,800, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $1,800 but not more than $7,763, the monthly rate shall be reduced by $0.08.
For each $1 of annual income which is more than $7,763, the monthly rate shall not be reduced.
No Parents' DIC is payable if the annual income exceeds $25,303.
These rates are also applicable in the case of one surviving parent who has remarried, computed on the basis of the combined income of the parent and spouse, if this would be a greater benefit than that specified in the rates for 38 U.S.C. 1315(b) for one parent.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on November 18, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice by clicking on the following link
VA PRA information: Maribel Aponte, 202-461-8900,
The requirements apply to all courses, not otherwise exempt, or waived, offered by all educational institutions, regardless of whether the institution is degree-granting, proprietary profit, proprietary nonprofit, eleemosynary, public and/or tax-supported. Schools are required to submit information necessary to determine if their programs of training are approved for the payment of VA educational assistance. This specified information is submitted either to VA or to the State Approving Agency (SAA) having jurisdiction over that school. This regulation includes a provision that permits an exemption from routine reporting of this data for schools that assert that the number of VA beneficiary students in all programs approved for GI Bill never exceeds 35% of the total enrollment at the educational institution. If approved, such non-accredited schools must still monitor and collect the data, but are exempt from routinely reporting it to VA. The VA uses data from this information collection to determine that non-receipt of the routine reporting of 85/15 data is authorized by non-accredited schools. Non-accredited schools with an approved exemption are required to provide the complete 85/15 data during regular, periodic compliance survey reviews by VA to ensure no more than 85% of students in any approved program are students in receipt of financial support from the educational institution or by VA under title 38 U.S.C., or under title 10 U.S.C. Without this information, VA might pay benefits in error.
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
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before January 21, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
This information will be collected through the DPSS, VA Form 10-10070, and may be submitted either on paper or electronically by Veterans. The DPSS questions have minor changes, to include updates to the Race and Ethnicity data collection fields to reflect current requirements. VHA also is prepared to implement an additional mode of collecting the information utilizing a web-based access system for Veterans to submit the survey responses. Information obtained from this dental survey will be made readily available to VA Central Office (VACO), Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), VHA field staff, and stakeholders as part of the Network Performance Report and via the VA Intranet.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Pecos pupfish (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before January 21, 2025. We must receive requests for a public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-697-7606. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0143 on
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, concurrently with listing, designate critical habitat for the species. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species, including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species.
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current status of this species.
(4) Information to assist with applying or issuing protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act that may be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Pecos pupfish. In particular, information concerning:
(a) The extent to which we should include any of the Act's section 9 prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule; or
(b) Whether we should consider any additional or different exceptions from the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule.
(5) Specific information related to critical habitat, such as:
(a) The amount and distribution of Pecos pupfish habitat;
(b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species, Chaves and Eddy Counties, New Mexico, and Culberson and Reeves Counties, Texas, that should be included in the designation because they (i) are occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, or (ii) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the conservation of the species; and
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change.
(6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(7) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding specific areas.
(8) Information on the extent to which the description of probable economic impacts in the economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts and the description of the environmental impacts in the environmental assessment is complete and accurate and any additional information regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
(9) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area, in particular for those covered by the Pecos Pupfish Conservation Agreement (see more details in
(10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in
We identified the Pecos pupfish as a Category 2 candidate in both the December 30, 1982, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife, Notice of Review (47 FR 58454); and the September 18, 1985, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife, Notice of Review (50 FR 37958). Category 2 candidates were those species for which the Service had information that proposed listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule at the time. This situation changed when the Pecos pupfish was identified as a Category 1 candidate in the January 6, 1989, Animal Notice of Review (54 FR 554) and in the November 21, 1991, Animal Notice of Review (56 FR 58804). Category 1 candidates were those species for which the Service had on file sufficient information to support issuance of proposed listing rules. In the February 28, 1996, Candidate Notice of Review (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of multiple categories of candidates, and only former Category 1 species are now recognized as candidates for listing purposes. The Pecos pupfish remained a candidate species in the 1996 Notice of Review and also in the September 19, 1997, Notice of Review (62 FR 49398).
The Pecos pupfish was proposed for listing as an endangered species without critical habitat on January 30, 1998 (63 FR 4608). Within the ensuing year between the proposal of the species for listing and the required final determination, a conservation agreement was developed. The conservation agreement was cited in the March 17, 2000, withdrawal of the proposed rule to list (65 FR 14513) as sufficient to ensure the viability of the Pecos pupfish.
On June 18, 2007, we were petitioned to list the Pecos pupfish as an endangered species as part of a multi-species petition to list 475 species in the Service's Southwest Region by WildEarth Guardians (WEG, formerly Forest Guardians). On December 16, 2009, we issued a positive 90-day finding that the petition presented information indicating that the listing of the Pecos pupfish may be warranted (74 FR 66866) and initiated a status review. Per a court-approved settlement agreement, we agreed to send a 12-month petition finding for the Pecos pupfish to the
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the Pecos pupfish. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from four peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions, including clarifications in terminology, additional literature on habitat fragmentation, discussions of severity of threats, and other editorial suggestions. Otherwise, no substantive changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA report were deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in version 1.2 of the SSA report (Service 2024, entire).
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Pecos pupfish is presented in the SSA report (version 1.2; Service 2024, pp. 1-21). The following sections are a synopsis of that information.
The Pecos pupfish is a small, deep-bodied (28 to 46 millimeter (mm) (1.1 to 1.8 inch (in.)), freshwater fish from the Pecos River Basin of New Mexico and Texas. It occurs in a variety of aquatic environments including wetlands, sinkholes, waterfowl impoundments, streams, springs and the Pecos River mainstem. The species historically inhabited the upper, middle, and lower Pecos River from just above Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Chaves County, NM, in the north, to south of the mouth of Independence Creek, in Crockett and Terrell Counties, TX, in the south. The Pecos pupfish is a member of the Cyprinodontidae family (pupfish and killifish), a group that includes 9 genera, 115 species, and 8 subspecies (ITIS 2023, entire). It is recognized as a valid taxon by the American Fisheries Society, and the Service accepts this taxonomy.
The Pecos pupfish varies in body color from gray to brown to iridescent blue. Pecos pupfish vary phenotypically amongst isolated habitat types, which may be advantageous for adapting to different food availability, dissolved oxygen availability, and salinity levels (Collyer et al. 2015, entire; Xu 2017, p. 22). Pecos pupfish are opportunistic omnivores; their diet is primarily composed of a diatom-detritus mixture, but may also include animal material, filamentous algae, macrophytes, sand, and seeds (Davis 1981, p. 536).
Pupfish are a euryhaline group of fish and are able to withstand conditions such as elevated salinity, higher water temperatures, and lower dissolved oxygen, that many other fish cannot tolerate (Kodric-Brown 1975, pp. 3, 6). The Pecos pupfish occurs in a variety of aquatic environments including wetlands, sinkholes, waterfowl impoundments, streams, springs, and the Pecos River mainstem (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, pp. 14-16; Collyer et al. 2015, p. 182). Pecos pupfish prefer environments with little to no water flow, and, in areas with flows, they typically occupy pools and shallow runs and riffles (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, pp. 36, 45). Within their occupied habitat, Pecos pupfish require a diverse set of microscale habitat conditions. A variety of underwater features such as crevices, boulders, large rocks, scattered pebbles, and aquatic plants provide topographic diversity throughout the range of the Pecos pupfish (Kodric-Brown 1975, p. 35; 1977, pp. 750-751, 753-756, and 761-762).
Pecos pupfish are sexually mature at 20 mm (0.79 in), within a few months of hatching (Kodric-Brown 1983, p. 128). Female Pecos pupfish lay an average of 10 eggs per day that adhere to spawning substrate, such as vegetation or rocks (Kodric-Brown 1977, pp. 751, 761-762, 764; (Garrett 1982, pp. 360, 363; Farrington and Brandenburg 2003, p. 1). Spawning occurs May through September, peaking in late June through July when water temperatures consistently exceed 30 degrees Celsius (°C) (86 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) in shallow waters less than 2 meters (m) (6.56 feet (ft)) deep, and in areas with a variety of silt-free underwater features such as crevices, boulders, large rocks, scattered pebbles, and aquatic plants (Kodric-Brown 1975, p. 35; 1977, pp. 750-751, 753-756, and 761-762). Pecos pupfish generally live for 1 year but can live an average of 2.5 years in captivity (Kodric-Brown 1977, p. 752m 765; Doege 2023, entire).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on
To assess Pecos pupfish viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0143 on
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species, its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
We analyze these factors both individually and cumulatively to determine the current condition of the species and project the future condition of the species under both plausible future scenarios at mid- and late-century.
For the Pecos pupfish to have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation, individuals need suitable habitat that supports essential life functions at all life stages (see table 1, below). Based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, and acknowledging existing ecological uncertainties, the Pecos pupfish needs include: (1) adequate population abundance, (2) sufficient water quantity, (3) suitable water quality, and (4) habitat diversity.
Two demographic factors, adult survival and fecundity, influence Pecos pupfish population trends and stability (Kodric-Brown and Mazzolini 1992, p. 175; Echelle and Connor 1989, p. 725; Echelle et al. 2003b, entire). The best available information indicates that Pecos pupfish can live up to 1 year in the wild and 2.5 years in captivity; however, we have no data on egg and juvenile survival (Kodric-Brown 1977, pp. 756-758; Garrett et al. 2002, p. 366; Doege 2023, entire). Data collected annually as part of a 23-year monitoring effort for the Pecos Pupfish Conservation Agreement (see more details in
The sheepshead minnow, once confined to shallow, brackish, coastal waters of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the continental United States, was introduced via a bait-bucket transfer into Red Bluff Reservoir near Pecos, Texas, in the early 1980s (Echelle and Connor 1989, p. 717; Childs et al. 1996, p. 2020;). By the late 1980s, Pecos pupfish were extirpated from this area and replaced by the Pecos pupfish × sheepshead minnow hybrid (Connor 1987, p. 2; Echelle and Connor 1989, pp. 717-720). In 1997, Pecos pupfish × sheepshead minnow hybrids were discovered in the Pecos River at Loving Crossing, Eddy County, NM (Echelle et al. 1997, p. 338; Echelle and Echelle 2007, p. 4). Records from 2016 and 2017 indicate that sheepshead minnow likely occur as far north as the Brantley Dam, Eddy County, NM, and that non-introgressed Pecos pupfish are extirpated from the Pecos River below
Pecos pupfish depend on sufficient water quantity to complete all stages of their lifecycle. While Pecos pupfish persist in shallow habitats less than 1 m (3.3 ft) deep (Salt Creek, NM), they may need deeper water to provide thermal refugia and winter habitat (Kodric-Brown 1977, p. 755). Sufficient water quantity is also necessary throughout the year for breeding and adult survival (Kodric-Brown 1977, p. 754; Hoagstrom et al. 2015, p. 14). It is surmised that water quantity changes in small, ephemeral streams have led to Pecos pupfish mortality events in both Bitter Creek and Salt Creek (NM) (Davenport 2023a and 2023b, entire; Jacobsen 2023, entire; Hoagstrom 2009, p. 28).
Water quantity for the Pecos pupfish is influenced by a variety of factors depending on the specific aquatic environment of a particular Pecos pupfish site or population. Sinkhole environments in the Pecos Basin are largely spring-fed systems derived from the San Andres artesian aquifer (Land 2003, p. 230). Similarly, permanent water in the Bitter Creek and Salt Creek (NM) likely originates from spring flow from the San Andres aquifer (Land and Huff 2009, p. 1). Salt Creek (TX) likely is supported by spring flows from the Toyah Aquifer, though no direct modeling has been done on this particular stream (LaFave 1987, p. 34). These streams also hold water during precipitation events. Water in Bitter Lake NWR is managed through a series of constructed impoundments and water conveyance structures. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Overflow Wetlands are supported by outflows of water from Lea Lake, a sinkhole in Bottomless Lakes State Park, as well as precipitation. Finally, water in the Pecos River is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for water deliveries, environmental flows, and fulfilling obligations under the 1948 Pecos River Compact (Llewellyn et al. 2021, pp. 39-42).
Karst aquifer systems, like that found in Bitter Lake NWR, may affect sinkhole systems, as groundwater pumping may tap into conduits that feed springs or sinkholes (Veni 2013, p. 47). Precipitation cycles and agricultural activity appear to be the two main factors causing variation in the aquifer levels (Land and Newton 2008, p. 189). However, the Roswell Artesian Basin provides an example of a rechargeable artesian aquifer, where water reduction measures and high levels of rainfall in the 1970's led to a reversal in long-term hydraulic head declines and allowed this aquifer to recharge (Land and Newton 2008, p. 190).
Members of the
The Pecos pupfish occurs in a variety of aquatic environments with a variety of underwater features that provide topographic diversity, such as crevices, boulders, large rocks, scattered pebbles, and aquatic plants provide topographic diversity throughout the range (Kodric-Brown 1975, p. 35; 1977, pp. 750-751, 753-756, and 761-762).Pecos pupfish typically occupy pools and shallow runs and riffles (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, pp. 36, 45). For reproduction, Pecos pupfish require shallow water less than 2 m (6.56 ft) deep and in areas with topographic diversity (Kodric-Brown 1977, pp. 750-751). Rocky embankments appear to be the most desirable breeding substrate, as the most aggressive and largest males occupy these areas at Mirror Lake, Bottomless Lakes State Park, Chaves County, NM (Kodric-Brown 1975, pp. 34-35). The percentage of males holding territory can vary year to year and is influenced by the amount of breeding and foraging habitat available (dependent on water levels), and that density of territorial males was highest in dense patches of aquatic vegetation, and lowest in flat silty areas with isolated rocks (Kodric-Brown 1975, pp. 20, 34-35). During the colder months when water temperatures drop below 10 °C (50 °F), Pecos pupfish become inactive and can be found in deeper water with dense vegetation and flocculent material (such as fine detritus or non-living organic matter) present in the substrate (Kodric-Brown 1977, p. 752; Hoagstrom et al. 2015, p. 17).
For the Pecos pupfish to be resilient, each population needs to be able to withstand stochastic events or disturbances that can drastically alter local ecosystems. Populations of Pecos pupfish need to have enough individuals (abundance) and occupy multiple types of habitats with sufficient water quantity and quality, (habitat diversity), such as sinkholes, streams, and wetlands to withstand stochastic events. Additionally, populations need to exist in locations where environmental conditions provide suitable habitat and water quality such that adequate numbers of individuals can be supported. Without all these factors, a population has an increased likelihood for localized extirpation.
For a species to persist over time, it must exhibit attributes across its range that relate to either representation or redundancy. Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time and is characterized by the breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and among populations (Shaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308). For the Pecos pupfish to exhibit adequate representation, resilient populations should occur within the Pecos River Basin to which it is native. The breadth of morphological, genetic, and behavioral variation should be preserved to maintain the evolutionary variation of the species.
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841; Redford et al. 2011, p. 42). Adequate redundancy minimizes the effect of localized extirpation on the range-wide persistence of a species (Shaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308). Redundancy for the Pecos pupfish is characterized by having multiple, resilient, and representative populations across the range of the species. Also important for measuring redundancy is the connectivity among discrete populations that allows for immigration and emigration between populations and increases the likelihood of recolonization should a population become extirpated. In the case of the Pecos pupfish, however, increasing connectivity among populations can present a hybridization risk.
Following are summary evaluations of four threats analyzed in the SSA report for the Pecos pupfish: introgression of the sheepshead minnow (Factor E), the loss and decline of surface and ground water, degradation of water quality, and habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor A), which are exacerbated by the effects of climate change (Factor A). We also evaluate existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing conservation measures.
In the SSA report, we also considered two additional threats: golden algal blooms (Factor A) and competition for food resources (Factor C). We concluded that, as indicated by the best available scientific and commercial information, these threats are currently having little to no impact on Pecos pupfish populations and thus the overall effect of these threats now and into the future is expected to be minimal. Therefore, we will not present summary analyses of those threats in this document, but we considered them in the current and future condition assessments in the SSA report. For full descriptions of all threats and how they impact the species, please see the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 43-44).
The sheepshead minnow is a threat to the Pecos pupfish through hybridization and competition for resources (Echelle et al. 2003b, entire; Echelle and Connor 1989, pp. 725-726). Pecos pupfish and sheepshead minnow lack isolating mechanisms and readily interbreed, and within as few as 5 to 7 years hybridization leads to the complete loss of genetically pure (non-introgressed) Pecos pupfish in the area of introgression (Cokendolpher 1980, entire; Echelle and Connor 1989, pp. 725-726; Echelle et al. 2003b, entire; Kodric-Brown and Rosenfield 2004, entire). Once a population is no longer genetically pure, it no longer exists. In addition, research suggests that the hybrid fish grow faster and are larger than pure Pecos pupfish, and thus outcompete genetically pure Pecos pupfish for resources (Rosenfield et al. 2004, p. 1595). Pecos pupfish hybridization with the sheepshead minnow is one of the greatest threats to this species and is cited as the cause of extirpation from historical sites (Echelle and Connor 1989, pp. 725-726; Echelle et al. 2003b, entire; Pecos Pupfish Conservation Team (Conservation Team) 2022, p. 5).
The New Mexico State Game Commission and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) implemented State fishing regulations that prohibit use of sheepshead minnow in the bait harvest and use program since 1999. However, this nonnative invasive species occurs within the lower Pecos River, below the Red Bluff Reservoir, and may be unintentionally captured, transferred, and released into Pecos pupfish habitat, and thus remains an ongoing threat (Conservation Team 2022, pp. 3, 5). While the Red Bluff Reservoir provides a physical barrier that prevents sheepshead minnow from naturally moving into the middle Pecos River, and the Brantley Dam and Reservoir provide a barrier that prevents the sheepshead minnow from naturally moving into the upper Pecos River, recreational fishing occurs throughout the river, so it is highly likely that a bait-bucket transfer would lead to an introduction of sheepshead minnow and result in the introgression of the population of Pecos pupfish within the upper Pecos River. Fish barriers have been installed at Bitter Lake NWR and at the BLM Overflow Wetlands to prevent entrance of sheepshead minnow from the mainstem Pecos River.
Adverse impacts to both water quantity and, to a lesser extent, water quality, are threats to Pecos pupfish viability. As anthropogenic uses of water increase from urban, agricultural, and industrial development, water management will become more important to maintain adequate water for the Pecos pupfish. While the demand on water in the Pecos River Basin is expected to increase based on climate change projections (Sites Southwest 2008, pp. 6-3, 6-6), we have reasonable certainty that there will be adequate aquifer levels until 2100 (Llewellyn et al. 2021, pp. 99-100). Although diversions from the Pecos River are capped by existing water rights, agreements, and regulations, decreasing surface water availability can increase the demand for pumped ground water (Dunbar et al. 2022, p. 87).
In New Mexico, population growth in Chaves County, which contains the majority of current occupied Pecos pupfish sites, averaged a 1.3 percent annual growth rate between 1960 and 2010 (Consensus Planning, Inc. 2016, p. 10) but a 1.9 percent annual decline between 2010 and 2020. The Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District (PVACD) regulates ground water use within the aquifer and supplies water to about 110,000 acres of crops/year (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 47). The amount of water withdrawn causes seasonal variability in aquifer levels, but yearly fluctuations in ground water levels typically remain similar (PVACD 2023, entire). The long-term average water level has remained constant. Water availability in the Pecos River is influenced by a variety of factors including human development, primarily agriculture. However, this river is currently managed for multiple uses, including endangered species conservation, and future human water use from the river is not expected to substantially increase in the future.
In Texas, the Delaware River, 12 mi (19.31 km) north of Salt Creek (TX), is experiencing an increase in ground water pumping to support hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations, and we expect the increased water usage to continue around Salt Creek (TX) (Scanlon et al. 2020, pp. 3510-3513). Both a deep and shallow aquifer (Rustler and Pecos Valley complex) may support the springs feeding Salt Creek (TX) (George et al. 2011, pp. 4, 58, 146). However, there are no specific hydrologic models detailing how the aquifers influence the flows in Salt Creek (TX). Conversely, fracking is not a threat to the Pecos pupfish populations in New Mexico as the oil formations there are structured differently than those in Texas.
Water use may increase with a growing human population, potentially further depleting ground-water storage and negatively influencing the Pecos pupfish's future (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 84). Activities such as surface and groundwater withdrawals, as well as impoundments, have decreased streamflow resulting in direct habitat loss and increased habitat fragmentation (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 138). Karst aquifer systems, like that found on Bitter Lake NWR, may affect sinkhole systems, as groundwater pumping may tap into conduits that feed springs or sinkholes (Veni 2013, p. 47). Precipitation cycles and agricultural activity appear to be the two main factors causing variation in the aquifer levels (Land and Newton 2008, p. 189). We are uncertain of how the aquifers will be affected and recover (rainfall and recharge), if at all, and how reduced surface flows (irrigation) would be affected by human population growth (Land and Newton 2008, p. 190).
The Pecos River provides connected wetted habitat year-round. There are four federally owned reservoirs on the Pecos River: Santa Rosa (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)); Sumner (BOR); Brantley (BOR); and Avalon (BOR), and the ground water rights are owned by the NM Interstate Stream Commission (Service 2017, pp. 7 and 11). The State and Federal agencies
Because Pecos pupfish are relatively tolerant of more extreme water quality conditions (high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, high salinity), minor changes to water quality are generally seen as less of a concern (Propst 1999, p. 68). However, throughout the Pecos pupfish's range, water temperatures have the potential to exceed the fish's thermal tolerance (Brown and Feldmeth 1971, entire). Furthermore, it is surmised that extreme salinity caused declines in two historical Pecos pupfish populations in two springs in Laguna Grande De la Sal, NM (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, pp. 13-16).
The entirety of the Pecos pupfish range in the Pecos River has ongoing water quality concerns and is considered impaired by the New Mexico Environmental Department (Llewellyn et al. 2021, pp. 27-29). Below Sumner Reservoir, the river improves for 160 km (100 mi) before becoming impaired by nutrients from irrigation return flow, urban runoff, and municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent to the State line (Llewellyn et al. 2021, pp. 27-28). Another stressor is contamination of water by oil and gas development (Bonetti et al. 2021, entire). Pipelines present another potential route of contamination, as leaks or ruptures may allow oil, gas, or brines to enter underground aquifers that contribute to spring flow or by point sources from spills and leaks on the surface (Ashworth 1990, p. 31). Oil and brine contamination may impair water quality to the extent that Pecos pupfish will be unable to carry out metabolic functions (
The Southwest United States is thought to be extremely sensitive to increased drought and higher average temperatures caused by climate change (Sheffield and Wood 2008, p. 101). In particular, temperatures across New Mexico, including in the Pecos River Basin, have risen approximately 1.1 °C) (2 (°F) between 1970 and 2020 (Dunbar et al. 2022, pp. 4-5). While Pecos pupfish have persisted through historical drought conditions, observations from Bitter Lake NWR suggest that prolonged drought or higher temperatures have likely led to mortality events (Jacobsen 2023, entire). Because Pecos pupfish are able to persist in degraded, saline water conditions, they are likely to be somewhat resilient to adverse water flow and temperature impacts (Propst 1999, pp. 67-68). However, Pecos pupfish are likely persisting at or near their thermal maximum, particularly during the hottest parts of the year (Matthews and Zimmerman 1990, p. 27). The increasing temperatures predicted by climate modeling suggest that water temperatures have the potential to exceed the thermal maximum for Pecos pupfish (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 88). This is particularly crucial for sites that are shallower, have limited freshwater input, or are isolated from any potential thermal refugia. Observations of the Conchos pupfish (
Climate change manifests in a variety of ways. An average increase in temperature manifests itself locally as higher daytime temperatures and higher overnight low temperatures (Hayhoe et al. 2018, p. 88). In terms of precipitation, broadly speaking, wet areas are expected to get wetter and experience more intense precipitation events, while dry areas are expected to get drier and experience more intense drought events (Shafer et al. 2014, pp. 443-445; Kloesel et al. 2018, pp. 995-996, 1004). Another effect of climate change is exacerbated drought due to feedback loops between high air temperatures, low humidities, and low soil moisture (Cheng et al. 2019, pp. 4437-4440). Potential effects of climate change that are likely to affect water quality and quantity include increased temperatures, evaporation, evapotranspiration, drought, earlier runoff, and reduced or increased precipitation (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 98). The main uncertainty of a changing climate is the resulting demands on surface and ground water aquifers that support habitat for the Pecos pupfish, thereby reducing water quantity and leading to impaired water quality.
Groundwater depletion has dried up several marshes, playas, and spring ponds formerly occupied by Pecos pupfish adjacent to the Pecos River in New Mexico and Texas (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, p. 11). Direct habitat loss was also believed to have caused the extirpation of Comanche Springs pupfish (
While we have no data regarding to what extent the Pecos pupfish use off-channel marshes and oxbows, based on habitat descriptions of the current known occupied locations we presume that at least a portion of the available off-channel habitat may have been used by Pecos pupfish for connectivity (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, p. 22). Furthermore, research suggests that habitat fragmentation and alteration may have rendered Pecos pupfish populations in the lower Pecos River more vulnerable to hybridization with the sheepshead minnow, and identified morphological differences between populations that are linked to aquatic habitat type and diversity (Collyer et al. 2015, p. 191). Similarly, pupfish need large and connected populations to have a chance to potentially withstand introgression (Collyer et al. 2015, p. 191). More recently, in 2020, 2022, and 2023, drought events led to the loss of portions of Bitter Creek on Bitter Lake NWR, with Pecos pupfish mortality observed in 2020 and 2022. Data collected during winter surveys suggest that the Pecos pupfish is able to return to sections of the creek once sufficient water quantities are present. Although data are lacking from the Pecos River mainstem, this scenario likely occurs there as well.
Habitat fragmentation is the disruption of continuous habitat resulting in smaller disconnected areas and can be either temporary or permanent (Wiegand et al. 2005, p. 109). The natural landscape for the Pecos pupfish comprises isolated sinkholes with unknown subsurface connectivity, disjunct wetlands and ephemeral streams, and a historically well-connected river system. Much of the direct habitat loss and fragmentation within the range of the Pecos pupfish is the result of dewatering of habitat as a result of anthropogenic development, and water management and use, such as demand for water for agriculture and oil and gas development (Hoagstrom et al. 2008, p. 6). Climate change impacts in the Pecos River Basin will likely result in higher overall surface temperatures. In general, warming surface temperatures directly impact evapotranspiration rates and can lead to lowered surface water (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 21). However, throughout the range of the Pecos pupfish the hydrology impacting their habitat is a complicated mix of evaporation, spring flow, and groundwater recharge.
The loss of habitat connectivity and the resulting fragmentation can lead to isolation among populations, which may have caused a genetic bottleneck in some Pecos pupfish populations (Collyer et al. 2015, p. 191; Whiteley 2023, pp. 6-7). Isolated and small populations are also more susceptible to stochastic events and amplify the effects of inbreeding depression and genetic drift (Rieman and Allendorf 2001, p. 762). Fragmentation and isolation of habitats can increase the risk of local extirpation as recolonization from adjacent populations is less likely (Hoagstrom et al. 2008, p. 13). As habitat loss and fragmentation increases, habitat diversity decreases.
The greatest threats to the Pecos pupfish are introgression with sheepshead minnow, loss and decline of surface and ground water, degradation of water quality, habitat loss and fragmentation, and the effects of climate change. Introduction of sheepshead minnow into new locations occupied by Pecos pupfish could lead to rapid introgression, replacing the genetically pure population with Pecos pupfish hybrids. Research has found Pecos pupfish populations that are already negatively impacted by habitat alteration are likely more at risk of introgression because the reduction in habitat increases competition for breeding substrate (Kodric-Brown and Rosenfield 2004, pp. 121-122; Collyer et al. 2015, p. 191). Anthropogenic water use and management has impacts on most of the surface water and groundwater within the range of the Pecos pupfish, and continued development and climate-driven changes to water availability will continue to impact the species in the future. Climate change impacts including higher average annual temperatures, more variable or lower average annual precipitation, and increased drought frequency, are currently impacting the Pecos pupfish and will likely continue to do so. Increasing temperatures increase the risk that shallow habitat could exceed the thermal tolerance of Pecos pupfish, and the resulting increased evapotranspiration leads to lowering of water levels with the potential for corresponding increases in salinity and water temperatures and lowered dissolved oxygen.
In 1999, a conservation agreement was developed to address the threats to Pecos pupfish (Conservation Team 1999; entire). Since implementation of the conservation agreement, conservation efforts have included sheepshead minnow eradication, installation of fish barriers, and enforcement of State fishing rules in an effort to protect the Pecos pupfish from further introgression of sheepshead minnows or hybrids and alleviate other threats affecting the Pecos pupfish (Conservation Team 2022, p. 3). The conservation agreement was amended in 2013 and in 2022 (Conservation Team 2022, pp. 1, 4).
These above-mentioned stressors—introgression, water quantity, and habitat degradation and loss—have been considered and some have been reduced through the implementation of the conservation agreement (Conservation Team 2022, entire). The agreement has eight signatory agencies: TPWD; New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF); New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department; New Mexico Department of Agriculture; New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission; Commissioner of Public Lands; New Mexico State Land Office; BLM; and the Service (Conservation Team 2022, pp. 8-23). The duration of the conservation agreement is indefinite with formal review every 10 years (Conservation Team 2022, p. 12).
Since 1999, one fish barrier has been installed at Bitter Lake NWR, near the confluence with the Pecos River. In 2019, two fish barriers were replaced at the BLM Overflow Wetlands, where north and south concrete barriers were installed to prevent the entrance of fish from the mainstem Pecos River into the complex. The barrier on the BLM Overflow Wetlands not only protects the wetlands, but also protects the Bottomless Lakes complex from the threat of hybridization.
Moving forward, the conservation agreement will continue to provide guidance for agencies and partners working towards Pecos pupfish conservation, help provide for ongoing maintenance of fish barriers, installation of additional fish barriers, and enforcing existing State and Federal baitfish regulations.
The Fort Worth Zoo and other collaborating zoos have successfully bred Pecos pupfish in captivity since 2000. Captive conservation efforts have focused on propagation techniques, animal husbandry research, and propagation for stocking. Beginning in 2012, the State of Texas began working with private landowners within the Pecos River watershed to identify opportunities for the development of Pecos pupfish production ponds. Two ponds were established in 2024; recruitment of additional landowners and establishment of additional ponds is ongoing. The goal of the ponds is to sustain the genetic lineage from the Salt Creek, TX, population, create stable habitats isolated from potential sheepshead minnow incursion with secure water sources, and provide a stock of fish that can be used to establish other locations.
A thorough review of the Pecos pupfish's current condition is presented in chapter 4 of the SSA report (version 1.2, Service 2024, pp. 46-74).
We divided the Pecos pupfish's range into nine analysis units (AU) (Figure 1). Currently, the Pecos pupfish is distributed across seven of nine AUs covering the historical range; two of the AUs are considered extirpated (figure 1; table 3; Service 2024, figure 20, p. 52). We defined Pecos pupfish AUs based on documented occurrences, U.S. Geological Survey hydrological unit code (HUC)-12 sub-watershed boundaries, stream and river features, and barriers (such as Brantley Reservoir and Red Bluff Reservoir) (Service 2024, p, 51). This approach is based on the assumption that the closer occurrences are (such as within the same AU), the more likely similar environmental processes are influencing the sites where the fish occurs. We evaluated the current viability of Pecos pupfish using
The species is known from nine analysis units.
To assess resiliency, we developed a qualitative model that incorporates one demographic metric (occurrence) and three habitat metrics (water quantity, water quality, and habitat diversity), and genetic security into the overall status for each unit (table 3). We selected habitat diversity as a metric as habitats with multiple aquatic environments may better allow the fish to withstand changing or adverse conditions.
To assess redundancy of the Pecos pupfish, we examined (1) how many extant sites exist within each AU, (2) how connected these sites are within the unit, and (3) how connected each unit is to nearby units. Importantly though, the diversity of the habitat, and not the number of sites Pecos pupfish have been detected, reflects the extent of the occupied Pecos pupfish habitat within the unit. For example, Bitter Creek (on Bitter Lake NWR) is approximately 1,546 m (5,072 ft) of variably wetted stream and is counted as a single site. Similarly, the BLM Overflow Wetlands cover over 1,000 acres (405 ha) and is also counted as a single site. However, we assume that with the exception of the sites delineated on the upper Pecos River, which is a riverine environment, each site is representative of a discrete aquatic environment.
To assess representation, we used aquatic environment (riverine, shallow stream, sinkholes, and wetlands) as a surrogate for genetic data. Genetic studies of Pecos pupfish have revealed important genetic relationships across the range of the species. The population of Pecos pupfish in the upper reaches of Salt Creek (TX) shows a specific allele that is unique to this location (Echelle et al. 2003b, p. 6). Recent work in the northern portion of their range has found that Pecos pupfish populations in the Bottomless Lakes State Park and BLM Overflow Wetland (AUs 5 and 6, respectively), are highly genetically differentiated from each other and from other populations (Whiteley 2023, pp. 7-9, 18). Additionally, individuals sampled from Bottomless Lakes State Park showed high inbreeding coefficient, (Whiteley 2023, p. 26). Analysis showed distinct clustering of Pecos pupfish at two sites at Bottomless Lakes State Park (Mirror Lake and Lazy Lagoon) and all of the sampled sites at Bitter Lake NWR (Whiteley 2023, p. 18). On Bitter Lake NWR, two distinct clusters were observed that may indicate gene flow (Whiteley 2023, p. 19). The sampled sites in the Middle Tract Wetlands clustered with each other and Bitter Creek, while the four sample sinkholes all clustered with each other (Whiteley 2023, p. 8). While that data analyzed by Whitely (2023, entire) did not attempt to infer a relationship between environmental factors, a result that might reflect either developmental plasticity or local genetic adaptation, research does suggest that Pecos pupfish morphology differs depending on the aquatic environments (
Fundamental to our analysis of the Pecos pupfish was the determination of scientifically sound analytical units at a scale useful for assessing the species. As there is little information available regarding the demographic or genetic processes that define the spatial structure of Pecos pupfish populations, we relied on spatial occurrence data to define a suitable extent for our AUs. Within each AU, we identified discrete sites where Pecos pupfish have been documented to occur during past sampling and inventory efforts (Brooks 1992, entire; Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, entire; National Heritage New Mexico (NHNM) 2021, entire; GBIF 2022, entire). These sites represent the documentation of at least one Pecos pupfish at a specific location at a point in time. Many of these sites have not been routinely visited or have been visited only once. Eleven sampling locations representing nine sites have been annually sampled (Hatt 2022, p. 5). In some cases, such as sinkholes, these sites are analogous to subpopulations. In others, such as the Pecos River or BLM Overflow Wetlands, the documented sites represent only the accessible portion of the habitat and likely do not represent the entire population in the area.
Based on the available data and our understanding of Pecos pupfish ecology, we developed a basis for assigning a risk category for each metric at the population AU level (table 4). The risk category reflects a qualitative determination of the likelihood that the species' response to the conditions described in each individual metric, over the 20-year period following the year 2023, would be extirpated from a given population AU. This 20-year timeframe correlates with approximately 20 1-year generations, which is near the maximum of the presumed Pecos pupfish lifespan in the wild.
We ranked and scored the individual metrics as one (low), two (moderate) or three (high), based on criteria described in table 3, then combined them to produce a categorical condition score for each AU. We then averaged that score across all four categories to develop an overall unit score. For the overall unit score, an average of greater than 2.6 was considered high condition, 1.6 to 2.5 was considered moderate condition, and 1.5 or less was considered low condition. To aid in the comparison of AUs (with each other and under various future scenarios (see the
The upper Pecos River is subject to regular severe low flows and intermittent drying (Follansbee et al. 1915, p. 452; Hatch et al. 1985, p. 561; Hoagstrom et al. 2008, p. 6). Because this situation threatens the persistence of the federally threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner, conservation measures are in place by the BOR through a biological opinion (under section 7 of the Act) to minimize intermittent drying. These measures buffer the threat of river drying for Pecos bluntnose shiner and, by extension, Pecos pupfish. The entire Pecos pupfish range in the Pecos River has ongoing water quality concerns and is considered impaired due to nutrient loading, discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges, and livestock grazing (Llewellyn et al. 2021, pp. 28-29). The current condition evaluation for the upper Pecos River population determined that occurrence, water quality, and habitat diversity are in moderate condition, and water quality is in low condition. Thus, the Upper Pecos River population is determined to be in overall moderate current condition and has moderate resiliency.
We have no recent data on water quality or quantity within this unit from the sinkholes or Salt Creek (NM). Deeper sinkholes generally have stable conditions, both in water quantity and quality, and thus we assume that likely holds true for the sinkholes in this unit as pupfish need large populations and room for expansion (Collyer et al. 2015, p. 191). Salt Creek (NM) likely experiences routine drying events throughout the year, and concurrently with those drying events, impairments to temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity.
Though the permanent water in both stream and sinkhole aquatic environments is supported by water from the San Andres aquifer, the depth of the sinkholes likely provides a more stable long-term environment. Conversely, Salt Creek (NM), although more ephemeral, allows for Pecos pupfish dispersal throughout the unit and provides a potential connection to the Pecos River. This diversity of habitat helps buffer the unit against both gradual environmental changes as well as stochastic events, such as floods or golden algae, that may impact a single aquatic environment. The current condition evaluation for the Salt Creek Wilderness determined that habitat diversity is in high condition, and occurrence, water quality, and water quantity are in moderate condition. Thus, the Salt Creek Wilderness population is determined to be in overall moderate current condition and has moderate resiliency.
Water quality is routinely sampled, and no impairments have been detected. Much of the water in this unit is derived from underground springs from the San Andres aquifer. This includes all of the sinkholes as well as the springs that feed Bitter Creek such as the Dragonfly Spring and Lost River. The closest monitoring well to this unit shows a long-term stable water depth trend that likely corresponds to stable spring flows in the unit (Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District (PVACD) 2023, entire). The water in Bitter Creek is supplemented by precipitation. Because evaporation exceeds precipitation across the Pecos River Basin, during drought years, portions of Bitter Creek dry out (Land 2003, p. 230).
Though the permanent water in both the stream and sinkhole aquatic environments is supported by water from the San Andres aquifer, the depth of the sinkholes likely provides a more stable long-term environment. Bitter Creek is supported by both seasonal precipitation as well as spring flows from Dragonfly Spring and the Lost River. This diversity of habitat helps buffer the unit against both gradual environmental changes as well as stochastic events, such as floods or golden algae, that may impact a single aquatic environment. The Bitter Creek Drainage population's current condition evaluation determined that occurrence, water quality, and habitat diversity are in high condition, and water quality is in moderate condition. Thus, the Bitter Creek Drainage population is determined to be in overall high current condition and has high resiliency.
This unit is composed of artificial wetlands and ditches that are managed by Bitter Lake NWR. The ditches are spring fed and retain permanent water. The wetland impoundments vary widely in habitat extent, and while many are likely to retain permanent water in most years, given the variable nature of the water in the impoundments, the amount of habitat is presumed to vary widely in any given year, and may be extremely limited in particularly dry years.
There are no known water quality impairments in the unit that would impact the Pecos pupfish. When water levels are low, the shallow impoundments and wetlands in the unit are subject to adverse water quality such as increased temperature and salinity, and decreased available dissolved oxygen because water becomes lentic or stagnant and soon evaporates.
Aquatic environments in this unit area are a mix of manmade channels, impoundments, and wetlands. While we do not have data on how Pecos pupfish move between these environments, the diversity of habitats likely helps buffer the Pecos pupfish from short-term environmental changes such as drought, provides ample sheltering and breeding habitat, and provides protection from stochastic events such as floods or golden algae blooms. Thus, the Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands population's current condition evaluation determined that occurrence, water quantity, water quality, and habitat diversity are in overall high current condition and the population has high resiliency.
All of the Pecos pupfish sinkholes at Bottomless Lakes State Park are fed by springs from the San Andres artesian aquifer (Land 2003, p. 229). Though some historical lowering of sinkhole levels has occurred, the recent trend is an increase in surface water levels in the sinkholes. Water levels in the sinkholes appear to be closely related to the overall fluctuation in water levels in the artesian aquifer (Land 2003, p. 231). No documented water contamination either from surface sources or natural water quality parameters has been recorded in the unit. Although sinkholes may exhibit more stable water quantity and quality, a mortality event was documented in 2020 in Upper Figure 8 Lake, which illustrates the susceptibility of these habitats to stochastic events. The Bottomless Lakes State Park population's current condition evaluation determined that occurrence, water quantity, and water quality are in high condition, and habitat diversity is in moderate condition. Thus, the Bottomless Lakes State Park population is in overall high current condition and high resiliency.
Lea Lake typically exhibits stable water quantity throughout the year (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, p. 16). In addition, wetland water is supplied by several springs throughout the complex as well as surface flows during precipitation events. As a result of the different sources of water, the extent of aquatic habitat varies both seasonally and annually. However, owing to the constant source of water from Lea Lake, as well as the springs in the complex, permanent water remains in many locations. Additionally, there are no known water contamination issues in this unit.
This unit contains a large wetland complex and the largest sinkhole in Bottomless Lakes State Park. This sinkhole was not included in Unit 5 as it is not hydrologically connected to the other sinkholes in Unit 5 and is hydrologically connected to the BLM Overflow Wetlands. The habitat diversity represented by these aquatic environments provides a buffer from stochastic events.
The BLM Overflow Wetlands AU is the only other unit that has high internal redundancy. Similar to the Pecos River, the BLM Overflow Wetlands provide a large area with many microhabitats. This unit was historically connected to the Pecos River during high flows, but fish barriers installed to protect the unit from sheepshead minnow introgression have limited this connection. The BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake population's current condition evaluation determined that occurrence, water quantity, and habitat diversity are in high condition, and water quality is in moderate condition. Thus, the BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake population is in overall high current condition and has high resilience.
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events by maintaining multiple, resilient populations distributed (and connected, as appropriate) within the species' varied habitats and across the species' range. We assessed Pecos pupfish redundancy at two scales, within the individual AUs and across the range of the species. Within the analysis unit we looked at connection both internal to the unit and across adjacent units to characterize the overall redundancy of a unit. The overall redundancy of the unit could not be higher than the lowest internal or external redundancy score. Important to the discussion of redundancy in Pecos pupfish populations is the consideration of sheepshead minnow introgression. While connectivity enhances redundancy within and among AUs, this same connectivity increases the threat of sheepshead minnow introgression. A well-connected Pecos pupfish population is one that allows for dispersal and recolonization but is also one that is at increased risk of introgression. Redundancy throughout the species' range, coupled with healthy populations, may help lower the risk of introgression. A healthy, robust Pecos pupfish population may be more resistant to introgression and, thus, less likely to contribute to spread of hybrid fish (Kodric-Brown and Rosenfield 2004, p. 122).
The Upper Pecos AU (Unit 1) is well connected throughout its length and the pattern of flow within the river likely creates a variety of microhabitat sites that are suitable for the Pecos pupfish. The Upper Pecos is moderately connected to adjacent off-channel units, though only at times of high flow.
The Salt Creek Wilderness unit (Unit 2) is one of two units that are currently connected to the Pecos River during periods of high flow. In the Salt Creek Wilderness unit, the connection to the unit is limited to Salt Creek (NM) proper where the Pecos pupfish may be found in only one permanent pool in Salt Creek (NM). Within this unit, Pecos pupfish are distributed among several sinkholes and in Salt Creek (NM); there is no known, above-ground connection between these areas.
Bitter Creek Drainage unit (Unit 3) does not have any known connection to adjacent AUs. Internally, many of the occupied sites within the Bitter Creek Drainage are isolated sinkholes. There is connection along Bitter Creek and to the springs that feed the creek; however, there is no known connection between the creek and adjacent sinkholes. It is
The Middle Tract unit (Unit 4) is connected to the Upper Pecos at the southern end of the unit during periods of high flow. While pupfish are likely widely distributed within the Middle Tract unit, connection among the different occupied sites is managed through a series of diversions and manmade impoundments. Water flow through the unit is generally north to south, and when the gates between the impoundments are open, flow is likely too great to allow Pecos pupfish to move up the current.
The Bottomless Lakes State Park unit (Unit 5) does not have any known connection to adjacent AUs and is fully isolated from all other AUs.
The BLM Overflow Wetlands unit (Unit 6) is the only other unit that has high internal redundancy. Similar to the Pecos River, the Overflow Wetlands provide a large area with many microhabitats. This unit was historically connected to the Pecos River during high flows, but fish barriers installed to protect the unit from sheepshead minnow introgression have limited this connection.
Salt Creek (TX) unit (Unit 8) is directly connected to the lower Pecos River. There is a presumed natural barrier within Salt Creek (TX) upstream from the confluence that moderates this connectivity. The barrier has allowed non-introgressed Pecos pupfish to remain extant in the upper reaches of Salt Creek (TX) despite the presence of an introgressed population downstream. It is currently unknown how many extant sites are found in the upper areas of Salt Creek (TX), but the connection between them likely varies seasonally with the amount of water in the creek.
We did not analyze the redundancy in the middle or lower Pecos River units (AUs 7 and 9), as the Pecos pupfish populations there are considered to be extirpated.
Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time and is characterized by the breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and among populations. As previously discussed, Pecos pupfish are known from a variety of different aquatic environmental settings and show specific morphological variation related to these environmental settings. Populations have been documented in sinkholes, streams, marshes, managed wetlands, and rivers with varying physical characteristics (
Although some limited genetic analysis has been done on the Pecos pupfish that indicated potential geographic structure to Pecos pupfish populations, research cautioned against a rigorous application of the results since the divergence was minor (Echelle and Echelle 2007, p. 7). More recent research has shown differences between Pecos pupfish populations among the samples from Bitter Lake NWR, Bottomless Lakes State Park, and the BLM Overflow Wetlands (Whiteley 2023, entire), and morphological divergence in Pecos pupfish populations that corresponded to differing habitat use (Collyer et al. 2015, p. 187; Xu 2017, p. 22). While there are no studies that directly relates morphological differences in Pecos pupfish to genetic differentiation, the best available information suggests that including a range of aquatic environments (
Currently, the Pecos pupfish is found within nearly all of the historically occupied environmental settings but is considered extirpated from the Pecos River in southern New Mexico and northwestern Texas and is likely extirpated from several off-channel locations in that same region. However, the upper Pecos River, the only remaining riverine AU, has moderate resiliency, which reflects a potential increase in the loss of representation of riverine Pecos pupfish in New Mexico. The only remaining extant AU in Texas also has moderate resiliency, which presents a risk to representation of Pecos pupfish in Texas. Pecos pupfish have likely experienced some reduction in representation as a result of the large range reduction following extirpations from the Pecos River and off-channel locations in Texas and southern New Mexico.
The Pecos pupfish is currently distributed across seven of nine AUs covering the historical range. Within those seven AUs, four were assessed to be in high resiliency condition and three in moderate condition. Across the range of the species, we identified 66 distinct locations (sites) where Pecos pupfish have been recorded since 1992. As of 2023, 8 (12.1 percent) of these 66 sites are confirmed or presumed extirpated and four are in unknown status. The remaining 54 sites (81.2 percent) are extant or presumed extant. Twenty-one sites (31.8 percent) have been confirmed as extant within the last 5 years. This does not consider losses that may have occurred before the first comprehensive range-wide surveys occurred in 1999 (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, entire). There has been a large decline in the extent of the occupied range because of the extirpation of Pecos pupfish from their historical range in the Pecos River below Brantley Dam (southern New Mexico and Texas). Pecos pupfish were historically found in riverine, stream, wetland, and sinkhole habitats and currently continue to be recorded in all of these habitats. Because of the reduction in the range caused by the extirpation of Pecos pupfish from a large section of the Pecos River, the species has experienced a reduction in both redundancy and representation. However, we do not have the data on the historical size of the Pecos pupfish population in the Pecos River or the genetic relationship between this population and others to adequately assess the relative importance of this population to the species. Regardless, the species has four populations in high condition, three in moderate condition, and none in low condition. These populations are well distributed throughout the range and among habitat types.
Although there is uncertainty surrounding the demography of differing Pecos pupfish populations and their genetic relationships, data suggests that the Pecos pupfish still occurs in multiple populations representing the historical range of habitat variation for the species. Though declines in range extent and, likely, population size have occurred, 11 years of monitoring data suggest that the Pecos pupfish continues to have multiple, long-term persistent populations throughout its range.
Using the same methods described for Current Condition, we assessed viability of the Pecos pupfish under three future scenarios at two timesteps, years 2050 and 2100, consistent with the best available information (Service 2024, pp. 76-102). Each scenario focused on a different climate projection for the Pecos River Basin, because changing climate conditions will affect the Pecos pupfish's required water quality and quantity parameters. We also assessed
Although development such as urbanization, agriculture, and oil and gas extraction may have local effects on some Pecos pupfish sites, we do not expect substantial effects from these sources at the species or AU level. The exception to this situation is the potential for oil and gas development in the vicinity of Salt Creek (TX) to cause significant variation in stream flow. Oil and gas development in this area is expected to increase as energy demands are needed with increased human development (Llewellyn et al. 2021, pp. 81, 163, 171). While we do not have ongoing monitoring on Salt Creek (TX), stream gauges on the Black River in New Mexico have shown a direct correlation between oil and gas activities and reductions in stream flow, which provides relevant context for how Salt Creek (TX) may be impacted.
Water availability in the Pecos River is influenced by a variety of factors including human development, primarily agriculture (see Loss and Decline of Surface and Groundwater above). However, this river is currently managed for multiple uses, including endangered species conservation, and future human water use from the river is not expected to substantially increase in the future. Given these factors, we find that the most important abiotic factors affecting Pecos pupfish viability will result from potential changes in water availability resulting from changing climatic conditions.
The most important biotic factor is the potential for hybridization and genetic introgression by sheepshead minnow. If sheepshead minnow gain access to the upper Pecos River, the Salt Creek Wilderness and Middle Tract Wetlands AUs are most at risk of introgression because they are both connected hydrologically to the Pecos River during flooding events, thus allowing for potential movement of sheepshead minnow into these off-channel habitats. In the case of the Salt Creek Wilderness, only Salt Creek (NM) itself is vulnerable to sheepshead minnow invasion, as the isolated sink holes in that AU are not likely to be inundated during Pecos River flooding events. Because of the managed nature of the Middle Tract Wetlands by the Bitter Lake NWR staff and the existence of numerous water control structures that can reduce opportunities for fish movement, the vulnerability within the unit decreases with distance from the Pecos River. Managed water flows, manmade barriers, and direct human intervention would likely be employed to manage the spread of sheepshead minnow throughout the unit if the species were to gain access to the upper Pecos River. The lower portion of Salt Creek (TX) is already introgressed with sheepshead minnow, although some upstream portions of the stream have maintained non-introgressed pupfish. However, there is no clear barrier preventing additional upstream movement, so we assume the risk of introgression remains high there. The remaining three units adjacent to the Pecos River (Bitter Creek Drainage, Bottomless Lakes State Park, and the isolated sinkholes with the Salt Creek Wilderness) have either manmade or natural barriers that would prevent or minimize the chance of the spread of sheepshead minnow from the Pecos River into these units resulting in low introgression risk.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses representative concentration pathways (RCPs) in climate change scenarios to project future concentrations of greenhouse gases (IPPC 2014, entire). Among the RCPs, the higher values mean higher greenhouse gas emissions and therefore higher global surface temperatures and more pronounced effects of climate change.
To assess potential future conditions for the Pecos pupfish, we utilized results from a study that developed projections of future water management and hydrologic conditions to assess future water availability across the Pecos River Basin in New Mexico (Llewellyn et al. 2021, entire) and selected three scenarios to represent the variability of potential future conditions that could impact the Pecos pupfish and its habitat:
•
•
•
For each of the scenarios we assumed that the Pecos Pupfish Conservation Agreement will remain active, and the signatory agencies will continue monitoring the biological condition of the species and working to prevent spread of sheepshead minnow (Conservation Team 2022, p. 3).
As with any analysis, we made many assumptions that have consequences for our projections and interpretation of Pecos pupfish viability. First, we only used occurrence data starting in 1992 as the basis for our analysis. This was the first published range-wide survey of the Pecos pupfish and therefore provided the most comprehensive data set on Pecos pupfish occurrence. Sites that were only recorded prior to 1992 were excluded from our analysis but were included in the overall picture of historical distribution.
We were unable to locate information on thresholds or water body sizes that equate to an increase in extirpation risk specifically for Pecos pupfish. It is logical to assume populations that occupy smaller and shallower habitats are less resilient, but there are no clear thresholds in the literature at which the size raises extinction risk. We also did not find any specific thresholds for water quality impacts to Pecos pupfish populations that equate to a specific extirpation risk. Pupfish, including the Pecos pupfish, are known for their tolerance for water quality conditions that inhibit the fecundity and survival of other fish. We assumed that populations experiencing long-term high temperatures or elevated salinity are less resilient, but there are no clear thresholds at which this long-term exposure raises extirpation risk. Thus, our categorization methodology may over- or under-estimate resiliency of populations depending on the actual biological thresholds.
A critical assumption is that the primary stressors we identified, sheepshead minnow presence, and water quality and quantity alteration that leads to habitat loss and fragmentation, which are exacerbated due to climate change, are the primary threats to the species' long-term viability. Although land use practices and development have impacted the species historically, given the current distribution of Pecos pupfish populations, we anticipate that these activities would not have a large future impact.
In order to characterize sheepshead minnow introgression into the future, we separately assessed this stressor. This stressor is a low probability, high consequence event where, if the event occurs, a population could be extirpated or highly degraded. The future scenarios included climate effects but assumed no change in sheepshead minnow presence. Both the climate change scenarios and the risk of sheepshead minnow introgression should be considered when assessing the status of the species.
Another assumption in this SSA regards the role of conservation in future viability of the Pecos pupfish.
Average annual surface temperatures as well as the incidence of extreme heat events are projected to increase across the entirety of the Southwest including the Pecos Basin (Vose et al. 2017, entire). Within the Pecos Basin, average surface temperatures could increase by as much as 13.32 °F (−10.4 °C) to an average surface temperature in excess of 70 °F (21.1 °C).
As temperatures increase across the region, we anticipate a corresponding increase in evapotranspiration rates. Both temperature and evapotranspiration rates can have negative effects on Pecos pupfish and their habitat. Increasing temperatures increase the risk of golden algae blooms as well as increasing the chances that shallow habitat could exceed the thermal tolerance of Pecos pupfish. Greater evapotranspiration leads to lowering of water levels with the potential for corresponding increases in salinity and water temperatures and lowered dissolved oxygen. Lowered water levels also may lead to a reduction in the overall habitat available to Pecos pupfish along with the potential of the complete loss of water in shallow aquatic environments.
Precipitation changes related to climate change are more variable and less certain than those changes projected for temperature. In the Southwest, the occurrence of seasonal monsoons complicates the picture for overall projected changes to precipitation in the Pecos River Basin. Though generally models predict a drying trend across the Pecos Basin, under certain RCP 8.5 conditions, monsoon moisture increases, leading to an increase in average annual precipitation. Under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, snowpack in the headwater of the Pecos River decreases with a corresponding earlier snowmelt runoff (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 191). Though precipitation changes could potentially reduce flows into the San Andres aquifer from the Sacramento Mountains, the effect of lower snowpack and runoff will likely be most impactful to the Pecos River.
The level of the San Andres aquifer likely directly impacts the water sources for most non-riverine Pecos pupfish habitats, except for those in Salt Creek (TX) (Land 2003, p. 228). Although we do not know the exact relationship between aquifer levels and the springs that provide flows to sinkholes, wetlands, and streams that provide Pecos pupfish habitat, we can infer that changes to the aquifer level will likely produce a corresponding change in spring flows. Levels in the San Andres aquifer are influenced by the amount of historical water in the aquifer and current inputs (Land and Huff 2009, p. 20) as well as pumping by users in the PVACD.
In this scenario, future annual air temperature increases slightly, and annual precipitation decreases throughout the Pecos River Basin. Though temperatures increase in all seasons, summer and autumn temperatures are predicted to increase more than winter and spring temperatures. By 2100 (and likely much sooner), conditions in the Pecos River Basin would be much drier than the historical average. Precipitation would be greatly decreased in all seasons, though decreases would be most extreme during the monsoon season. Runoff inflow into the Pecos River Basin will decrease across every season, and the inflow that will occur is anticipated to be the result of very few large storm events (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 105).
In this scenario, both temperature and annual precipitation increase throughout the Pecos River Basin. Increased temperatures retain more moisture in the atmosphere leading to increased monsoons. This scenario is more seasonally variable, with sharply increased inflow during the monsoon season and a steep decrease of inflow during the spring runoff. In this scenario, spring and summer temperatures increase more rapidly than fall and winter temperatures. While precipitation decreases during winter and spring, precipitation increases during the summer and autumn monsoon season, leading to an overall increase in precipitation within the Pecos River Basin. As a result of decreased winter precipitation, spring runoff is anticipated to decrease. However, a large increase in monsoon flows make up for the spring runoff decrease (Llewellyn et al. 2021, pp. 105-106).
This scenario anticipates the smallest changes to temperature and precipitation of the three scenarios. By 2100, this scenario predicts slightly higher average temperatures and a slightly dryer climate. Importantly, summer and fall temperatures are anticipated to increase almost twice as much as winter and spring temperatures (Llewellyn et al. 2021, p. 101).
Using the projections for temperature, precipitation, and San Andres aquifer under the three scenarios outlined above, we then predicted the potential range of outcomes these scenarios could have on the Pecos pupfish. Future conditions were analyzed for each resiliency metric and summarized for each unit (Service 2024, appendix C, entire).
This scenario forecasts extreme drying and higher temperatures across the Pecos River Basin. A decrease in precipitation across the basin along with increased air temperatures and overall drying trends is projected to lead to decreases in stream flow, spring output, and potentially a lowering of the aquifer that supports wetland and sinkhole habitats for the pupfish. Although the Pecos River is managed for flows that support endangered species such as the Pecos bluntnose shiner, decreasing precipitation will lead to an increase in drying days, impeding the ability of the upstream storage to deliver reliable water to both downstream users and retain adequate flow in the Pecos River and. Higher temperatures, particularly during the summer, will lead to an increase in water needs and increased groundwater pumping by agriculture in the PVACD. Higher temperatures also increase evaporative loss from water
This scenario will have some negative effects on all Pecos pupfish AUs. The most severe impacts are anticipated to be to small streams. Salt Creek (TX), Salt Creek (NM), and Bitter Creek are all projected to dry and cease flowing during the hottest parts of the year leading to local fish kills, or in the case of Salt Creek (TX), possibly the loss of all habitats in the AU. All of these creeks currently experience intermittent drying events, and lower precipitation and increased temperatures in the future will exacerbate this existing condition that stresses these habitats. Wetland areas such as the BLM Overflow Wetlands and the managed wetlands on Bitter Lake NWR are also anticipated to be significantly impacted in this scenario. At the 2050 timestep, given the climate projections, habitat conditions are projected to be similar to current conditions with minimal changes to most aquatic environments, with the exception of small streams that are already experiencing impacts from warming and drying temperatures. By 2100, significant degradation to Pecos pupfish habitat and a decline in its distribution are expected. Shallow streams will likely no longer support permanent water leading to the loss of fish in Bitter Creek, Salt Creek (NM), and Salt Creek (TX), which would mean the extirpation of Pecos pupfish from Texas. Habitat extent in wetland habitats in the BLM Overflow Wetlands and Middle Tract on Bitter Lake NWR will be greatly reduced, and pupfish would be expected to persist only in deeper channels or near springs.
Historically, the San Andres aquifer has been resilient and rebounded after extended drought (Land and Newton 2008, pp. 189-190). However, the conditions under this scenario, RCP 8.5, at 2100 will be much hotter and drier than the historical average and are expected to lead to unprecedented conditions in aquifer levels and surface water quality and quantity. Across the range of the Pecos pupfish, we anticipate substantial increases in salinity as a result of increased evapotranspiration. Although Pecos pupfish can tolerate higher salinity levels than most fish, significant salinity impairment (salinities greater than 35,000 mg/L) could lead to a reduction in suitable conditions for breeding. Increasing surface temperatures will lead to an increase in water temperatures and likely lowered dissolved oxygen saturation. This will be particularly pronounced in shallow habitat such as streams and wetlands. A substantial reduction in the aquifer level would reduce the outflow of springs leading to a loss of fish in habitats that rely on steady, perennial spring flow and a reduction (or elimination) of available habitat in shallower sinkholes. Additionally, the increasing temperature and evaporation could cause shallower habitats to exceed the thermal and saline tolerances of the Pecos pupfish. Consequently, we anticipate a reduction in both the number, extent, and population sizes of extant sites in sinkhole units. Finally, we anticipate greatly reduced flows in the Pecos River under this scenario. While reduced flows in the Pecos River have the potential to benefit the pupfish on a seasonal basis, long-term drying events will lead to the disconnection of occupied sites and increased impairment of water quality.
Given these assumed future changes in the environment, by 2050, three AUs (Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands, Bottomless Lakes State Park, and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake) are projected to remain in high condition, three units (Upper Pecos River, Salt Creek Wilderness, and Bitter Creek Drainage) are in moderate condition, and one unit (Salt Creek (TX)) is in low condition (Service 2024, p. 83). At 2100, only one AU (Bottomless Lakes State Park) is in high condition, four units (Upper Pecos River, Bitter Creek Drainage, Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands, and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake) are in moderate condition, one unit (Salt Creek Wilderness) is in low condition, and one AU (Salt Creek (TX)) is extirpated. Although habitat conditions are expected to generally decline across the range, the Bottomless Lakes State Park AU is anticipated to remain in high condition because the sinkhole habitats there are expected to be less affected by potential aquifer declines. While only two units (Bitter Creek Drainage and Salt Creek (TX)) experience declines from current condition at 2050, by 2100 all units except Bottomless Lakes State Park experience declines from current condition.
This scenario forecasts a significantly higher average annual surface temperature across the Pecos River Basin. Unlike Scenario 1, higher summer temperatures result in more moisture in the atmosphere, consequently leading to an increase in precipitation during the summer monsoon season (June-September). Overall higher surface temperatures will lead to similar outcomes as described under Scenario 1, such as water quality impairment, and reduction in habitat extent. However, the predicted increased monsoons may buffer some systems from the most severe impacts of increasing average temperatures.
As with Scenario 1, the small streams are most likely to experience the most severe adverse impacts from increasing annual temperatures. These aquatic environments will likely experience more drying events and subsequent impairments to salinity, water temperatures, and dissolved oxygen. At the 2050 timestep, conditions appear similar to current conditions throughout much of the Pecos pupfish range. However, small streams will likely stop flowing during the hottest parts of the year, leading to local fish kills, or in the case of Salt Creek (TX), possibly the loss of all habitats in the AU. By 2100, rising annual temperatures may eliminate year-round stream flow in all but the wettest years. Consequently, we anticipate the loss of the Pecos pupfish population at Salt Creek (TX) and a reduction in occupied sites in Bitter Creek and the Salt Creek Wilderness. Increased temperatures will have an impact on shallower wetlands in the BLM Overflow Wetlands and Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands. Prolonged extreme air temperatures can adversely impact water quality and could result in decreased fitness, hinder breeding, or lead to fish kills. Sinkholes are the most stable environment for the Pecos pupfish, and this is unlikely to change in this scenario. The San Andres aquifer responds quickly to precipitation inputs, and an increase in monsoon season precipitation will likely prevent significant declines in sinkhole water levels.
Given these assumed future changes in the environment, at 2050, three units (Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands, Bottomless Lakes State Park, and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake) are projected to remain in high condition, three units (Upper Pacos River, Salt Creek Wilderness, and Bitter Creek Drainage) are in moderate condition, one unit (Salt Creek (TX)) is in low condition, and two units (Middle Pecos River and Lower Pecos River) remain extirpated. Under this scenario, only two units (Bitter Creek Drainage and Salt Creek (TX)) experience a decrease from current condition. At 2100, two units (Bottomless Lakes State Park and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake) are in high condition, three units (Upper Pecos River, Bitter Creek Drainage, and Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands) are in moderate condition, one unit (Salt Creek Wilderness) is in low condition, and three units (Middle Pecos River, Salt Creek (TX), and Lower Pecos River) are
This scenario forecasts a minimal increase in yearly average temperatures and a minimal decrease in precipitation across the basin. Even minimal decreases in precipitation could have consequences for shallow streams in several units (Salt Creek Wilderness, Bitter Creek Drainage, and Salt Creek (TX)). Like the prior scenarios, the 2050 time step appears fairly similar to current condition. By 2100, small streams are likely experiencing increased water stress, and in dry years likely most of the stream environments will be dry. However, under this scenario, we anticipate minimal impacts to groundwater resources and thus minimal impacts to sinkhole, spring fed, and river habitats.
At 2050, four units (Bitter Creek Drainage, Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands, Bottomless Lakes State Park, and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake) are projected to be in high condition, and three units (Upper Pecos River, Salt Creek Wilderness, and Salt Creek (TX)) are in moderate condition, and two units (Middle Pecos River and Lower Pecos River) are extirpated. At 2100, three units (Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands, Bottomless Lakes State Park, and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake) are projected to be in high condition, three units (Upper Pecos River, Salt Creek Wilderness, and Bitter Creek Drainage) are in moderate condition, one unit (Salt Creek (TX)) is in low condition, and two units (Middle Pecos River and Lower Pecos River) are extirpated. In Scenario 3, no units experience decreases from current condition at 2050; however, at 2100 two units (Bitter Creek Drainage and Salt Creek (TX)) experience decreases from current condition.
Along with the three scenarios described above, we also considered the risk of sheepshead minnow introgression into the different AUs. Because sheepshead minnow are often used as bait fish, the most likely path for the sheepshead minnow to move into units existing with non-introgressed Pecos pupfish populations is through a bait bucket transfer into the Pecos River upstream of Brantley Reservoir. Based on data collected from the lower Pecos River, this scenario would be highly likely to result in the introgression of the entire population of Pecos pupfish in the Pecos River (Unit 1, Upper Pecos River) (Whiteley 2023, p. 2). Bait bucket transfers are highly unlikely to occur in any of the other AUs, as these units are generally either well controlled or do not contain game fish species. As such, the most likely route for sheepshead minnow introgression into other AUs would be natural movement of sheepshead minnow from the Upper Pecos River AU, if they gained access there.
The AUs most at risk of sheepshead minnow introgression from the upper Pecos River are the Salt Creek Wilderness and Middle Tract Wetlands, which are both connected hydrologically to the upper Pecos River during flooding events, allowing for potential movement of sheepshead minnow into these off-channel habitats. In the case of the Salt Creek Wilderness, only Salt Creek (NM) itself is vulnerable to sheepshead minnow invasion, as the isolated sink holes in that AU are not likely to be inundated during Pecos River flooding events. Because of the managed nature of the Middle Tract Wetlands by the Bitter Lake NWR staff and the existence of numerous water control structures that can reduce opportunities for fish movement, the vulnerability within the unit decreases with distance from the Pecos River. Managed water flows, manmade barriers, and direct human intervention would likely be employed to manage the spread of sheepshead minnow throughout the unit if the species were to gain access to the Upper Pecos River. The lower portion of Salt Creek (TX) is already introgressed with sheepshead minnow; however, despite the lack of a clear barrier preventing upstream movement, upstream portions of the stream have maintained non-introgressed pupfish. Because we cannot identify a barrier, we assume the risk of introgression remains high. The remaining three units adjacent to the Pecos River (Salt Creek Wilderness, Bitter Creek Drainage, and Bottomless Lakes State Park) have either manmade or natural barriers that would prevent or minimize the chance of the spread of sheepshead minnow from the Pecos River into these units, resulting in low introgression risk.
We considered what the Pecos pupfish needs to maintain viability and characterized the status of the species in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in natural ecosystems within a biologically meaningful timeframe: in this case, out to 2100. We chose 2100 because we have information to reasonably project the potential significant effects of stressors within the range of the Pecos pupfish within this timeframe. Based on the Pecos pupfish life history and habitat needs, and in consultation with the species' experts, we identified the potential stressors (negative influences), and the contributing sources of those stressors, that are likely to affect the species' future viability. We then evaluated how these potential future stressors would interact with current stressors, and how, and to what extent they would affect the species in the future. Based on the best available information, we believe the two largest influences on the future viability of the Pecos pupfish are the potential of introgression with sheepshead minnow and climate change-driven impacts to water quantity, water quality, and loss of habitat diversity. While water pollution and human development (particularly agricultural and oil and gas development) activities have likely influenced the species' current condition and may affect some areas (Salt Creek (TX)) in the future, we found that the changing climate and the related effects to water availability to sustain habitats has, and will continue to have, the greatest influence on the status of the Pecos pupfish. Sheepshead minnow introduction, while much less predictable, does have the potential to impact Pecos pupfish populations above Brantley Dam should an introduction occur.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in
Our assessment of best available information indicates that currently two of the nine known Pecos pupfish populations have been extirpated, and three others are in moderate condition. The majority of known occupied Pecos pupfish sites are within the other five units around Bitter Lake NWR and Bottomless Lakes State Park in New Mexico (AUs 2-6). Within these units, four were found to be in high condition and one in moderate condition, indicating that multiple areas across the species' core range have high resiliency. The small Salt Creek AU in Texas is currently in moderate condition. This unit is disconnected from the remainder of the species' range in New Mexico, providing some redundancy in maintaining a relatively large geographic range. The two large units of the Lower and Middle Pecos River have been previously extirpated due to the introgression of the sheepshead minnow. Loss of these parts of the range represent a significant reduction in the overall range and redundancy for the species and loss of a large segment of the riverine habitats historically available to the species. The riverine habitats continue to be represented by the Upper Pecos River Unit.
Under all three plausible future scenarios, species condition would be reduced by 2100. In the hottest and driest scenario (Scenario 1), shallow streams are likely to be lost, leading to the extirpation of Pecos pupfish in Salt Creek (TX) and a reduction in redundancy and representation in the Salt Creek Wilderness and Bitter Creek Drainage units. Deeper sinkholes and wetlands are more stable and are expected to maintain suitable conditions for the Pecos pupfish under all scenarios. However, units such as Bitter Creek Drainage, Middle Tract, and BLM Overflow Wetlands are more vulnerable to losses in redundancy in Scenario 1 due to susceptibility to habitat losses from future drying climatic conditions. The Pecos River may also be unable to sustain year-round flows under conditions predicted in Scenario 1. The increased stream flows from projected increase in monsoons in Scenario 2 help maintain sinkhole habitats throughout the range of the Pecos pupfish, and to a lesser extent, likely may buffer wetland habitats from the most severe impacts of increased temperatures. However, small streams are likely still at elevated risk of being lost or experiencing long-term drying or mortality events. Finally, in the mildest future climate scenario (Scenario 3), further effects to most habitat (wetlands, sinkholes, and riverine) are anticipated to be minimal. However, like the other two scenarios, shallow streams likely will experience drying and mortality events.
Under all three scenarios, we anticipate some reductions to resilience, redundance, and representation. Although some additional changes to Pecos pupfish status are projected to occur by 2050, we anticipate that measurable changes to viability will be more apparent by 2100. The resilience of the aquifer to small year-to-year variation and the adaptability of the Pecos pupfish to variable habitat conditions will likely offset some of the climate changes through 2050. Under all scenarios, at least one AU remains in high condition. Under both Scenarios 1 and 2, Pecos pupfish are projected to be extirpated from Salt Creek (TX), eliminating the only population outside of New Mexico that has been described as genetically different from the core populations in New Mexico. Pecos pupfish experience most losses of known occupied sites under Scenario 1, though losses would be likely to occur under scenarios 2 and 3 as well. Bottomless Lakes State Park remains the only AU that would be in high condition under all three scenarios.
Concurrent with the effects of climate change is the risk of expansion of sheepshead minnow and subsequent hybridization with Pecos pupfish. Salt Creek (TX) is already at high risk of loss due to sheepshead minnow introgression. The Upper Pecos River is currently highly vulnerable to sheepshead minnow introduction via a bait bucket transfer. Should this introduction occur, non-introgressed Pecos pupfish would likely be extirpated from this unit, and, as a consequence there would be no remaining Pecos pupfish in the Pecos River. This would also increase the potential for sheepshead minnow invasion into portions of the Salt Creek Wilderness, the Middle Tract Wetlands, and possibly the Overflow Wetlands units.
The Pecos Pupfish Conservation Agreement will continue to provide guidance for agencies and partners working toward Pecos pupfish conservation through several means. First, the monitoring outlined in the conservation agreement will provide a long-term data set on the persistence of Pecos pupfish and, as methods are refined, population trends within four AUs (Bitter Creek Drainage and Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands, BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake, and Bottomless Lakes State Park). This monitoring will allow partners to detect potential sheepshead minnow introgression and allow for the detection of long-term declines or extirpations of Pecos pupfish. Secondly, the conservation agreement will help provide for ongoing maintenance (or potentially additional) barriers to fish passage that may protect some of the AUs from sheepshead minnow introgression should a bait bucket transfer into the Upper Pecos River occur. Finally, the agreement can reduce the opportunity for further invasions by a collaborative effort of State and Federal entities to enforce existing baitfish regulations.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that Pecos pupfish populations will continue to face the ongoing risk of sheepshead minnow introgression, and populations will remain small and isolated from one another. The risk of sheepshead minnow introgression is cumulative, meaning that the risk builds over time such that the risk of this species being introduced into the current Pecos pupfish range by a bait bucket transfer is higher in the future than it is currently. Additionally, Pecos pupfish populations will experience reductions in resiliency, redundance, and representation through 2050, with more measurable declines by 2100 due to decreased surface water availability, increased frequency of drought, higher than average temperatures, and continued groundwater depletion.
We considered whether the Pecos pupfish is presently in danger of extinction and determined that endangered status is not appropriate. The current conditions assessed in the SSA report show that the Pecos pupfish is distributed across seven of nine AUs across the historical range. Although there may have been reductions from
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The court in
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the “significance” question or the “status” question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in
We evaluated the range of the Pecos pupfish to determine if the species is in danger of extinction in any portion of its range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the definition of an endangered species. For Pecos pupfish, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction in that portion.
We examined the range for biologically meaningful portions based on the four broad categories of aquatic environments that Pecos pupfish occupy throughout its range, which reflect phylogenic relationships as well as physiogeographical differences in aquatic habitat. The aquatic environments germane to the range of the Pecos pupfish are riverine (includes the upper, middle, and lower Pecos River segments), shallow stream (includes Salt Creek (NM) and Salt Creek (TX)), sinkholes (includes Salt Creek Wilderness, Bitter Creek Drainage, and Bottomless Lakes State Park), and wetlands (includes Bitter Creek Middle Tract Wetlands and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake).
Once we identified the biologically meaningful portions to examine, we then turned to the question of whether these portions may have a different biological status. Of these aquatic environments, the riverine environment contains just one population, the upper Pecos River, which is in moderate condition. The other environments have multiple populations, including four in high condition. Therefore, we are examining the riverine environment to determine if it has a different status than the remainder of the range.
We evaluated the available information about this portion of the range of Pecos pupfish that occupies the upper Pecos River in this context, assessing its biological significance in terms of condition criteria (genetic security, occurrence, water quality, water quantity, and habitat diversity; see
Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in
Based on of the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Pecos pupfish meets the Act's definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the Pecos pupfish as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery outline made available to the public soon after a final listing determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from protected status (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available on our website as they are completed (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State(s) of New Mexico and Texas would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Pecos pupfish. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Although the Pecos pupfish is only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7 of the Act is titled Interagency Cooperation and mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its determination of whether the federal action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action which
Examples of discretionary actions for the Pecos pupfish that may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 7 are management of Federal lands administered by the BLM, the BOR, the Corps, and the Service's NWR System as well as actions that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that included limited prohibitions against takings (see
The provisions of this species' proposed protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we would use to promote the conservation of the Pecos pupfish. The proposed protective regulations would apply only if and when we make final the listing of the Pecos pupfish as a threatened species. Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any way the recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the Pecos pupfish. As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, even before the listing of any species or the designation of its critical habitat is finalized, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.
Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that “may affect” a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule (under application of a “blanket rule” (for more information, see 89 FR 23919, April 5, 2024) or a species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule does not change the process and criteria for informal or formal consultations and does not alter the analytical process used for biological opinions or concurrence letters. For example, as with an endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “not likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, this will require the Service's written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). Similarly, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, the action will require formal consultation with the Service and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Because consultation obligations and processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we may consider developing tools to streamline future intra-Service and inter-agency consultations for actions that result in forms of take that are not prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still require consultation). These tools may include consultation guidance, online consultation processes via the Service's digital project planning tool (Information for Planning and Consultation;
Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we propose to apply the protections for the Pecos pupfish through our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31(a). In our April 5, 2024, final rule revising those regulations (89 FR 23919 at 23922-23923), we found that applying those regulations as a whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the threatened species. We have not identified any ways in which a protective regulation for this threatened species would need to differ from the regulations at 50 CFR 17.31(a) in order to contain the protections that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Pecos pupfish. Therefore, if we finalize this rule as proposed, the regulations at 50 CFR 17.31(a) apply. This means that except as provided in 50 CFR 17.4 through 17.8, or in a permit issued pursuant to 50 CFR 17.32, all of the provisions of 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, except § 17.21(c)(3) and (5), would apply to the Pecos pupfish, and the provisions of 50 CFR 17.32(b) concerning exceptions for certain entities would also apply to the species.
Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the Pecos pupfish's conservation needs. As discussed previously in Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Pecos pupfish is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to risk of introduction of nonnative invasive sheepshead minnow into new locations occupied by Pecos pupfish, loss and declines of surface and ground water, degradation of water quality, and habitat loss and fragmentation. Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are not required to make a “necessary and advisable” determination when we apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a threatened species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing
The protective regulations we are proposing for Pecos pupfish incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation includes all of these prohibitions because the Pecos pupfish is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and putting these prohibitions in place will help to prevent further declines, preserve the species' remaining populations, slow its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other ongoing or future threats.
In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the Pecos pupfish by prohibiting the following activities, unless they fall within specific exceptions or are otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
Under the Act, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating take would help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease cumulative effects from other ongoing or future threats. Therefore, we propose to prohibit take of the Pecos pupfish, except for take resulting from those actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
Exceptions to the prohibition on take would include all of the general exceptions to the prohibition on take of endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21.
Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more otherwise-prohibited activities, including those described above. The regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR 17.32). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; or (ii) dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) remove specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner; the taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by live-capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area.
We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve Pecos pupfish that may result in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
The proposed 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of the species by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation actions or that, while they may have some minimal impact on the Pecos pupfish, are not expected to rise to the level that would have a negative impact (
Those exceptions include the following activities:
(1) Management and maintenance of ponds that are stocked with captive-bred Pecos pupfish by the State of Texas.
(2) Research activities on individual Pecos pupfish in those ponds by holders of a valid State-issued scientific research permit, zoological permit, or educational display permit. Individuals exercising this exception must provide to the State of Texas annual reports containing the following information: the nature of research performed; dates of fieldwork; the number of individuals collected or captured, and the methods used to obtain them; a description of any accidental injuries or mortalities; the number of individuals from which genetic material was collected, the type of tissue collected, and the institution or location where the genetic material is being stored. The location of fieldwork and landowner identifying information is not required. This exception applies only to individuals with a current, valid permit from the State of Texas and applies only to research conducted on pupfish ponds on private lands that are
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they must implement “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information compiled in the SSA report and information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) the prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the species.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species” as the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, physical features essential to the conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
The individual needs of Pecos pupfish vary somewhat by life stage (egg, hatchling, juvenile, adult); however, as an aquatic species, Pecos pupfish need adequate water quantity and water quality to meet their resource functions, which include feeding, growth, survival, and breeding. The Pecos pupfish occurs in a variety of aquatic environments including wetlands, sinkholes, impoundments, streams, springs, and rivers, specifically the Pecos River mainstem (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, pp. 14-16; Collyer et al. 2015, p. 182). All life stages of the Pecos pupfish prefer environments with little to no water flow, and, in areas with flows, they typically occupy pools and shallow runs and riffles (Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, pp. 36, 45). Pecos pupfish tolerate high salinity (less than 35,000 mg/L) and low dissolved oxygen (greater than 2.5 mg/L), and while the specific thermal tolerance of Pecos pupfish is unknown, studies examining thermal tolerance of other pupfish found tolerance to range from below 0 °C to 45 °C (23 °F to 113 °F) (Bennett and Beitinger 1997, pp. 81-85; Hoagstrom and Brooks 1999, pp. 21, 31; Propst 1999, pp. 67-68). However, data collected in studies of desert pupfish found that temperatures above 42.7 °C (108.9 °F) may be lethal (Schoenherr and Feldmeth 1992, p. 50; BEEC 2010, p. 8). These physical conditions (dissolved oxygen, salinity, and temperature) can be greatly affected by spring discharge and other flow parameters (Kodric-Brown 1975, pp. 3, 6). Overwintering juvenile and adult Pecos pupfish need dense aquatic vegetation and flocculent materials (such as fine detritus or non-living organic matter) in the substrate (Kodric-Brown 1977, p. 752; Hoagstrom et al. 2015, p. 17). Therefore, sufficient water quality and water quantity that provides the appropriate conditions for the Pecos pupfish is essential to the species.
Spawning adult Pecos pupfish require slow-moving waters that are less than 2 m (6.56 ft) deep, and in areas with topographic diversity that include a variety of underwater features such as crevices, boulders, large rocks, scattered pebbles, and aquatic plants that are used for oviposition sites (Kodric-Brown 1975, p. 35; 1977, pp. 750-751, 753-756, and 761-762). Rocky embankments appear to be the most desirable breeding substrate, and the density of territorial males is highest in dense patches of aquatic vegetation, and lowest in flat silty areas with isolated rocks (Kodric-Brown 1975, pp. 20, 34-35). Female Pecos pupfish lay individual eggs that adhere to spawning substrate, such as vegetation or rocks (Kodric-Brown 1977, pp. 751, 761-762, 764). Therefore, habitat with crevices, boulders, large rocks, scattered pebbles, and aquatic plants is essential to the species.
The introduction of the nonnative, invasive sheepshead minnow has the potential to negatively affect Pecos pupfish through hybridization (Echelle et al. 2003b, entire; Echelle and Connor 1989, pp. 725-726). Hybridization eventually leads to the loss of non-introgressed (genetically pure) Pecos pupfish in the area of introgression (Echelle and Connor 1989, p. 725; Echelle et al. 2003b, entire). Sheepshead minnow also outcompete the Pecos pupfish for resources (Echelle et al. 2003b, entire; Echelle and Connor 1989, pp. 725-726). Therefore, the absence of this nonnative invasive species is essential to the Pecos pupfish. Bait bucket transfers of sheepshead minnow are most likely in the Upper Pecos Unit. Bait bucket transfers are highly unlikely to occur in any of the other AUs as these generally are either well controlled or do not contain game fish species. As such, the most likely route for sheepshead minnow introgression would be from the Upper Pecos River AU to the Salt Creek Wilderness and Middle Tract Wetlands, which are both hydrologically connected to the upper Pecos River during flooding events, allowing for potential movement of sheepshead minnow into these off-channel habitats.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Pecos pupfish from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2024, entire; available on
(1) Water quality parameters that support all life stages of the Pecos pupfish, including:
(a) Absence of pollutants, or a level of contaminants low enough that it does not negatively impact necessary water quality conditions for Pecos pupfish individuals;
(b) Salinity less than 35,000 mg/L;
(c) Temperature less than 42.7 °C (108.9 °F); and
(d) Dissolved oxygen greater than 2.5 mg/L.
(2) Sufficient water quantity parameters that support all life stages of the Pecos pupfish, including:
(a) Permanent water in some area of habitat; and
(b) Water depth less than 2 m (6.56 ft) deep to allow for thermal refugia and breeding.
(3) Presence of silt-free underwater features such as crevices, boulders, large rocks, scattered pebbles, and aquatic plants that are used for egg deposition.
(4) Absence of nonnative invasive sheepshead minnow.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species may require special management considerations or protection to reduce the following threats: introduction of sheepshead minnow, habitat degradation due to declines in water quantity and water quality, and habitat fragmentation.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to: (1) construction and maintenance of barriers that prevent the spread of sheepshead minnow; (2) enforcement of existing State regulatory mechanisms that prohibit bait-bucket releases of sheepshead minnow in New Mexico and Texas; (3) active management of wetlands to provide for adequate water quantity and flow; (4) securing water rights to provide long-term spring flows; (5) monitoring and preventing water quality impairments from upland sources such as agricultural runoff and industrial pollutants; and (6) survey and monitoring to further characterize the extent and spread of hybridization with sheepshead minnows.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species because (1) we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, and (2) we have determined that the occupied areas are sufficient to conserve the species.
We anticipate that recovery will require conserving the genetic diversity of extant populations across the species' current range and maintaining and, where necessary, improving habitat and habitat connectivity to ensure the long-term viability of the Pecos pupfish. This proposed critical habitat designation delineates the habitat that is physically occupied and used by the species rather than delineating all land or aquatic areas that influence the species. We have determined that the areas currently occupied by the Pecos pupfish would maintain the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation and are sufficient to conserve the species. Therefore, we are not currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat include multiple databases maintained by universities and State agencies, scientific and agency reports, and numerous survey reports throughout the species' range (Service 2024, pp. 28-34).
In summary, for areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) We delineated areas within the historical range that had positive survey data between the year 1992 and the time of listing (see Service 2024).
(2) We terminated stream segments at barriers, confluences, areas where genetically pure Pecos pupfish have been extirpated, other obvious unsuitable habitat, or a location selected based on expert knowledge of a lack of presence.
(3) We included connecting stream segments between occupied stream segments as long as the inclusion does not disagree with criterion (2) and there are no data to suggest that the Pecos pupfish is not present.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features necessary for Pecos pupfish. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation.
We are proposing to designate five units of critical habitat for Pecos pupfish: 136.12 river mi (219.06 river km) of instream habitat (to the ordinary high water mark, not including riparian areas) and 26,555.54 acres (10,746.64 ha) of lands that encompass numerous isolated sinkholes and wetland areas. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Pecos pupfish.
The five areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Upper Pecos River Unit; (2) Salt Creek Wilderness Unit; (3) Bitter Lake Unit; (4) BLM Overflow Wetlands/Bottomless Lakes Unit; and (5) Salt Creek (TX) Unit. Table 5 shows the proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area of each unit. The Bitter Lake Unit includes both the Bitter Creek Drainage and Bitter Lake NWR Middle Tract Wetlands AUs (see table 2 for a list of the AUs). The BLM Overflow Wetlands/Bottomless Lakes Unit includes both the Bottomless Lakes State Park and BLM Overflow Wetlands and Lea Lake AUs. Two AUs from the SSA report, the Middle Pecos River and Lower Pecos River units, are not proposed as critical habitat units because no extant genetically pure Pecos pupfish remain in these units.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Pecos pupfish, below.
The Upper Pecos River Unit consists of 121.88 river mi (196.15 km). The Upper Pecos River Unit begins at Bosque Draw in Chaves County, New Mexico, and extends south on the Pecos River to (but not including) Brantley Lake, in Eddy County, New Mexico. The entire unit is currently occupied by the species and supports all of the physical and biological features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species. Ownership of the adjacent riparian areas is 26.76 percent Federal, 3.99 percent State, and 69.26 percent private.
Based on prior introductions, without barriers, sheepshead minnow could spread through all the accessible portions of the Upper Pecos River Unit. In addition, this unit is subject to regular severe low and intermittent flows. Conservation measures are in place by the BOR under a biological opinion to minimize river intermittency for the federally threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner. These measures buffer the threat of river drying for Pecos bluntnose shiner and, by extension, Pecos pupfish.
The entirety of this unit has ongoing water quality concerns and is considered impaired. Water availability in the unit is primarily influenced by the management of the upstream dam at Fort Sumner. River flows downstream of Bitter Lake NWR are influenced by groundwater pumping by PVACD water users and return flows from crop irrigation. Therefore, special management considerations may be required to maintain barriers that prevent the spread of sheepshead minnow into the upper Pecos River, enforce prohibitions of bait-bucket releases of sheepshead minnow in New Mexico and Texas, maintain adequate water quantity and flow, monitor and prevent water quality impairments from upland sources such as agricultural runoff and industrial pollutants, routinely monitor for Pecos pupfish and to document the extent and spread of hybridization with sheepshead minnows. The Upper Pecos River Unit is occupied by two federally listed species, the threatened Pecos sunflower (
The Salt Creek Wilderness Unit contains Salt Creek (New Mexico (NM)) and four sinkholes within 5,428.74 acres (2,196.93 ha) of land between Cottonwood Road and the confluence with the Pecos River in Chaves County, New Mexico. Areas within this proposed critical habitat unit are limited to the sinkholes and wetlands areas, and do not include the lands adjacent to the wetted areas. The wetted areas within this unit are currently occupied by the species and support all of the PBFs essential to the conservation of the species. Ownership of the adjacent riparian areas is 100 percent Federal, primarily encompassing the Refuge North Tract of Bitter Lake NWR. Salt Creek (NM) is an ephemeral stream with permanent water in deeper pools along the stream course. There is a low risk of introgression with sheepshead minnow into the sinkholes within the Salt Creek Wilderness Unit, as they are isolated from the Pecos River. Although fish remain extant at several locations in the unit, the extent of habitat is small, and Salt Creek (NM) is subject to mortality events. Therefore, special management considerations may be required to enforce prohibitions of bait-bucket releases of sheepshead minnow in New Mexico and Texas, maintain fish barriers to prevent spread of sheepshead minnow, maintain adequate water quantity and flow in Salt Creek (NM), monitor and prevent water quality impairments from upland sources such as agricultural runoff and industrial pollutants, and routinely monitor for Pecos pupfish to document the spread and extent of hybridization with sheepshead minnows. There is no overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
The Bitter Lake Unit contains Bitter Creek and numerous isolated sinkholes, spring ditches, managed and natural wetlands, and oxbows of the Pecos River within 11,972.90 acres (4,845.26 ha) of land between Bitter Lake Road in the north and Miami Road in the South in Chaves County, New Mexico. All of the wetted areas in the entire unit are currently occupied by the species and support all of the PBFs essential to the conservation of the species. Ownership of the adjacent riparian areas is 80.71 percent Federal, 0.73 percent State, and 18.56 percent private. Most of the unit falls within Bitter Lake NWR. While the sinkholes in the Bitter Lake Unit are isolated and well protected from sheepshead minnow introgression, there
The water in Bitter Creek is supplemented by precipitation during wet seasons or years, and during drought years, when precipitation is not sufficient to maintain surface flows, portions of Bitter Creek dry out. Therefore, special management considerations may be required to maintain adequate flows in Bitter Creek to maintain habitat connectivity and for routine monitoring for Pecos pupfish. The Bitter Lake Unit is occupied by seven federally listed species, the threatened Wright
The BLM Overflow Wetlands/Bottomless Lakes Unit contains a wetland and several sinkholes within 9,153.90 acres (3,704.45 ha) of land in Chaves County, New Mexico. This unit is east of the Pecos River and between Highway 380 in the north and the approximate southern border of the BLM Overflow Wetlands ACEC in the South. The wetlands and sinkholes within this unit are currently occupied by the species and support all of the PBFs essential to the conservation of the species. Ownership of the adjacent riparian areas is 19.49 percent Federal, 20.26 percent State, and 60.25 percent private. The majority of occupied habitat within this unit falls within Bottomless Lakes State Park and the BLM Overflow Wetlands ACEC.
Although the BLM Overflow Wetlands contain constructed and maintained fish barriers, a severe flood could overtop or wash out these barriers, presenting a risk from sheepshead minnow, which are present near this population. The isolated sinkholes and wetlands within Bottomless Lakes State Park are well protected from sheepshead minnow introgression because (1) they do not contain game fish species and (2) fishing with baitfish is illegal, making these areas a low risk of bait-bucket releases. In 2020, a complete loss of pupfish in Upper Figure 8 Lake sinkhole is speculated to have been caused by a golden algae outbreak, but the actual causes are unknown. Therefore, special management considerations may be required for routine monitoring for Pecos pupfish to document the extent and spread of hybridization with sheepshead minnows. The BLM Overflow Wetlands/Bottomless Lakes Unit is occupied by one federally listed species, the threatened Pecos sunflower.
The Salt Creek (TX) Unit consists of 14.24 river mi (22.92 km) in Culberson and Reeves Counties, Texas. The unit begins at RM 2119 in Culberson County, Texas, and extends northeast on Salt Creek to RM 652 in Reeves County, Texas. Ownership of the adjacent riparian areas is entirely under private ownership.
Pecos pupfish from the lower reach of the Salt Creek (TX) Unit, near the confluence with the Pecos River, were confirmed introgressed with sheepshead minnow, though an unidentified physical barrier appears to have limited the spread of introgressed fish further upstream. The entirety of this unit has ongoing water quality concerns and is considered impaired due to contaminants introduced from upland sources such as agricultural runoff and industrial pollutants from oil and gas extraction. While during wet seasons or years, the water in Salt Creek (TX) is supplemented by precipitation, during drought years, the precipitation is not sufficient to maintain surface flows. Therefore, special management considerations may be required to maintain barriers that prevent the spread of sheepshead minnow into the upper portion of Salt Creek (TX), enforce prohibitions of bait-bucket releases of sheepshead minnow in New Mexico and Texas, maintain adequate water quantity and flow, and monitor and prevent water quality impairments from upland sources such as agricultural runoff and industrial pollutants, and to survey and monitor the extent and spread of hybridization with sheepshead minnows. There is no overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species in the Salt Creek (TX) Unit.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species (50 CFR 402.02).
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during formal consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (1) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion or written concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new species listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to certain agency actions (
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that our
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, so long as exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species concerned. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the “Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act” (hereafter, the “2016 Policy”; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled “The Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act” (M-37016).
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor. In our final rules, we explain any decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we use for taking into consideration each category of impacts and any initial analyses of the relevant impacts.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.”
The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends and reaffirms E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and directs Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation is considered a “significant regulatory action” and requires additional analysis, review, and approval if met. The criterion relevant here is whether the designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect of $200 million or more in any given year (section 3(f)(1) of E.O 12866 as amended by E.O. 14094). Therefore, our consideration of economic impacts uses a screening analysis to assess whether a designation of critical habitat for Pecos pupfish is likely to exceed the threshold for a regulatory action significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Pecos pupfish (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2024; entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographical areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Pecos pupfish, first we identified, in the IEM dated March 26, 2024, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management (BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service, BOR, and our NWR System), (2) prescribed fire projects, (3) pipeline and utility crossings, (4) watershed restoration activities, (5) road maintenance and bridge replacement maintenance, (6) pesticide use, (7) construction of recreation improvements and management of recreation activities, (8) stocking practices, (9) surveys and monitoring, (10) agriculture, and (11) oil and gas exploration and extraction. We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we list the species, in areas where the Pecos pupfish is present, Federal agencies would be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the species. If when we list the species, we also finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, Federal agencies would be required to consider the effects of their actions on the designated habitat, and if the Federal action may affect critical habitat, our consultations would include an evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that would result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Pecos pupfish includes a total of five units, all of which are occupied by the species. Ownership of the riparian lands adjacent to the two proposed riverine units includes 32.61 river mi (52.48 km; 23.95 percent) Federal, 4.86 river mi (7.82 km; 3.57 percent) State, and 98.65 river mi (158.76 km; 72.47 percent) private. Ownership of lands that encompass numerous isolated sinkholes and wetland areas that are currently occupied by the species in three proposed units includes 16,875.89 acres (6,829.43 ha, 63.55 percent) Federal, 1,942.65 acres (786.16 ha, 7.32 percent) State, and 7,737 acres (3131.05 ha, 29.14 percent) private. In these areas, any
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Pecos pupfish totals 136.12 river mi (219.06 river km) of instream habitat (to the ordinary high water mark, not including riparian areas) and 26,555.54 acres (10,746.64 ha) of lands that encompass numerous isolated sinkholes and wetland areas that are currently occupied by the species (the sinkholes and wetlands areas, not including the lands adjacent to the wetted areas). In these areas any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Pecos pupfish. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in 100 percent of the proposed critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. Activities that we expect would be subject to consultations that may involve private entities as third parties are oil and gas operations that may occur on private lands. However, based on coordination with State agencies, the cost to private entities is expected to be relatively minor (administrative costs of less than $5,700 per consultation effort); therefore, they would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of the Pecos pupfish critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This limitation is due to two factors: (1) the proposed units are considered occupied by the Pecos pupfish, and occupied units are afforded significant baseline protection under the Act due to the presence of the listed species; and (2) the Pecos pupfish receives additional baseline protection from co-occurring listed species, which include species with overlapping critical habitat and similar resource and habitat needs. At approximately $5,700 or less per consultation, the burden resulting from designation of critical habitat for the Pecos pupfish, based on the anticipated annual number of consultations and associated consultation costs, is not expected to exceed $11,000 in most years. The designation is unlikely to trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations. Thus, the annual administrative burden is relatively low. Any future probable incremental economic impacts are not likely to exceed $200 million in any single year, and impacts that are concentrated in any geographical area are not likely as a result of this critical habitat designation.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the economic analysis discussed above. During the development of a final designation, we will consider the information presented in the economic analysis and any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2), our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016 Policy. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or areas that pose potential national-security concerns (
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides information, including a reasonably specific justification of an incremental impact on national security that would result from the designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation. If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for Pecos pupfish are not owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and
At this time, we are not considering any exclusions from the proposed designation based on economic impacts, national security impacts, or other relevant impacts—such as partnerships, management, or protection afforded by cooperative management efforts—under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Some areas within the proposed designation are included in the Conservation Agreement for the Pecos Pupfish between and among TPWD; NMDGF; New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department; New Mexico Department of Agriculture; New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission; New Mexico State Land Office; BLM; and the Service.
If through the public comment period we receive information that we determine indicates that there are economic, national security, or other relevant impacts from designating particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will evaluate that information and may conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we receive a request for exclusion of a particular area and after evaluation of supporting information we do not exclude, we will fully explain our decision in the final rule for this action. (Please see
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
Executive Order 14094 amends and reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 14094. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, as understood in light of recent court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, only
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
E.O. 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects to the extent permitted by law when undertaking actions identified as significant energy actions (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a “significant energy action” as an action that (i) meets the definition of a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no statement of energy effects is required.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because the lands being proposed for critical habitat designation are owned by the New Mexico State Parks, BLM, BOR, and the Service's NWR System. None of these government entities fits the definition of “small government jurisdiction.” Therefore, a small government agency plan is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Pecos pupfish in a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Services to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the proposed designation of critical habitat for Pecos pupfish, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
However, when we designate as “critical habitat” any of the areas that fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, including this designation proposed for the Pecos pupfish, we undertake a NEPA analysis for that critical habitat designation consistent with the Tenth Circuit's ruling in
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We will continue to work with relevant Tribal entities during the development of any final rules for the Pecos pupfish. We have determined that no Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Pecos pupfish, so no Tribal lands would be affected by the proposed designation.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(bb) Pecos pupfish (
(i) Import or export, as set forth at § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, as set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife.
(2)
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under § 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b).
(iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) Management and maintenance of ponds that satisfy Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) permitting requirements and are stocked by TPWD with captive-bred Pecos pupfish.
(B) Research activities conducted by holders of a valid scientific research permit, zoological permit, or educational display permit issued by TPWD on individual Pecos pupfish in ponds that are part of the TPWD Pecos pupfish production effort. Researchers must report annually to TPWD, and TPWD must annually report to the Service, the following information:
(
(
(
(
(
(e)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Chaves and Eddy Counties, New Mexico, and Culberson and Reeves Counties, Texas, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Pecos pupfish consist of the following components:
(i) Water quality parameters that support all life stages of the Pecos pupfish, including:
(A) Absence of pollutants, or a level of contaminants low enough that it does not negatively impact necessary water quality conditions for Pecos pupfish individuals;
(B) Salinity less than 35,000 mg/L;
(C) Temperature less than 42.7 °C (108.9 °F); and
(D) Dissolved oxygen greater than 2.5 mg/L.
(ii) Sufficient water quantity parameters that support all life stages of the Pecos pupfish, including:
(A) Permanent water in a portion of the habitat; and
(B) Water depth less than 2 m (6.56 ft) deep to allow for thermal refugia and breeding.
(iii) Presence of silt-free underwater features such as crevices, boulders, large rocks, scattered pebbles, and aquatic plants that are used for egg deposition.
(iv) Absence of nonnative invasive sheepshead minnow.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI OpenStreets and Imagery basemaps, USA Federal Lands data, and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Plus dataset. Polygons for units 2, 3, and 4 were largely defined through heads-up digitization or land ownership boundaries (Unit 3, Bitter Lake NWR); acreage or mileage numbers in the designation came from these features. For online distribution, linear features in Unit 1 (the Pecos River) and Unit 5 (Salt Creek) were converted to polygons. We used NHD polygons when available. When polygons were unavailable, we buffered the linear features by a set distance; 20 m for the lower third of unit 1, and 5 m for the entirety of unit 5. The boundaries of units 2, 3, and 4 that abutted the Pecos River were adjusted to match the new Unit 1 polygon. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the public at
(5) Index map follows:
(6) Unit 1: Upper Pecos River, Chaves and Eddy Counties, New Mexico.
(i) Unit 1 consists of 121.88 river mi (196.15 km) of the upper Pecos River in Chaves and Eddy Counties, New Mexico, and is composed of lands in Federal (32.61 river mi (52.48 km)), State (4.86 river mi (7.82 km)), and private (84.41 river mi (135.84 km)) ownership. Unit 1 includes river habitat up to bank full height.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: Salt Creek Wilderness, Chaves County, New Mexico.
(i) Unit 2 contains Salt Creek (New Mexico) and four sinkholes within 5,428.74 acres (2,196.93 hectares (ha)) of land in Chaves County, New Mexico. The wetted areas within this unit are entirely under Federal ownership, specifically the Service's Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
(8) Unit 3: Bitter Lake, Chaves County, New Mexico.
(i) Unit 3 contains Bitter Creek and numerous isolated sinkholes, spring ditches, managed and natural wetlands, and oxbows of the Pecos River within 11,972.90 acres (4,845.26 ha) of Chaves County, New Mexico. The unit is composed of lands in Federal (9,663.15 acres (3,910.54 ha)), State (87.87 acres (35.56 ha)), and private (2,221.88 acres (899.16 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
(9) Unit 4: Overflow Wetlands/Bottomless Lakes, Chaves County, New Mexico.
(i) Unit 4 contains a wetland and several isolated sinkholes within 9,153.90 acres (3,704.45 ha) in Chaves County, New Mexico. The unit is composed of lands in Federal (1,784 acres (721.96 ha)), State (1854.78 acres (750.60 ha)), and private (5,515.12 acres (2,231.89 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
(10) Unit 5: Salt Creek (TX), in Culberson and Reeves Counties, Texas.
(i) Unit 5 consists of 14.24 river mi (23.20 km) in Culberson and Reeves Counties, Texas, and is composed of lands in 100 percent private ownership. Unit 5 includes river habitat up to bank full height.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows: