The purpose of, and need for, Forest Service action is to respond to an application submitted by BHR under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 and Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Act of 2011 to implement projects from their accepted MDP. The 1986 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dixie National Forest (DNF LRMP) identifies providing increased downhill skiing capacity and working with the private sector to help meet future recreation demand as desired future conditions for recreation on the DNF. The Forest Service has identified a need to meet the demand for increased downhill skiing capacity working through this private sector application from BHR. The Forest Service will use the EIS to inform the decision regarding: whether to approve, in whole or in part, BHR's application; the selection of a preferred alternative; determining appropriate environmental protection measures; and establishing, if necessary, what terms and conditions should apply with the issuance of an amended special use permit (SUP).

BHR has identified a need to add a variety of recreational opportunities and amenities to address shortcomings in resort capacity, access, and operations to meet the demands of a growing, recreational-focused region and state. BHR's overall purpose of the proposed action is to provide an improved and unique guest experience that meets the current and expected population growth, and associated demand for outdoor recreation in Utah and the southwest region, which cannot be accomplished within BHR's existing operational and SUP boundary. A full description of BHR's Purpose and Need can be found at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r04/dixie/projects/65965 .

The proposed action includes: the expansion of the existing special use permit (SUP) area; installation of new lifts; construction (tree and stump removal and grading) of new ski trails; construction of new on-mountain facilities; installation of new snowmaking facilities; installation of new utilities; construction of new administrative roads and improvements to existing roadbeds to access new infrastructure (such as upper lift terminals); re-routing of an existing snowmobile route; and hazard tree removal and post-fire treatment in areas impacted by the 2017 Brian Head Fire.

A full description of the proposed action on National Forest System lands and adjacent private land can be found at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r04/dixie/projects/65965 .

If necessary, the need for potential amendment(s) of the DNF LRMP, as amended, in the areas of the proposed SUP boundary adjustment will be identified and disclosed in the EIS. The purpose and need of the potential plan amendment(s) would be to ensure consistency of the project with the DNF LRMP 's scenery and recreation management settings. The scope of the potential amendment may be project-specific or plan-level.

The proposed action has the potential to result in impacts to various resources including water, cultural resources, scenery, recreation, traffic/transportation, wildlife, and socioeconomics. Specific issues to be analyzed include: potential impacts to hydrologic and/or groundwater resources from additional water use for expanded snowmaking operations; potential impacts to dark night skies, specifically to the Cedar Breaks National Monument (CBNM), a designated International Dark Sky Park; the potential for new ski area infrastructure to adversely affect cultural resources and the scenic resource on DNF-managed lands (which will be analyzed for consistency with the Scenic Integrity Objectives [SIOs] in the DNF LRMP); the potential to alter the quality and variety of recreation opportunities available within and proximate to the proposed SUP expansion areas (which will be analyzed for consistency with the DNF LRMP's Recreation Opportunity Spectrum [ROS] designation of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, and Roaded Natural) as well as potential to impact permitted snowmobile operations for a neighboring small business; the potential to increase traffic on Highway 143 resulting from an increase to BHR's comfortable carrying capacity; the potential to negatively impact northern goshawk nesting and Post Fledgling Area habitat, crucial summer calving habitat for Rocky Mountain elk, crucial summer fawning habitat for mule deer, habitat for American pika, and habitat for the Brian Head Mountain snail within and adjacent to the project area; and the potential to affect adjacent communities resulting from changes in employment, tourism revenue, and housing in Iron County.

The Forest Service is the lead federal agency for NEPA compliance, review, and approval concerning the EIS. The National Park Service/CBNM will be a cooperating agency to assist in the NEPA analysis for dark skies and water resources.

The responsible official is Kevin Wright, Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. In this process the Agency is requesting comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and identification of any relevant information, studies or analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human or natural environment. Further, three public open house meetings will be held during this comment period. These open houses will be held in the Town of Brian Head, the City of Parowan, and Cedar City. Details of the dates, times, and locations of these meetings can be found on the project's web page: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r04/dixie/projects/65965 . Representatives from the DNF and BHR will be present at these scoping open houses to answer questions and provide additional information on this project.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the final EIS; therefore, comments must be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Commenting during scoping and any other designated opportunity to comment provided by the Responsible Official as prescribed by the applicable regulations will also govern eligibility to object once the final EIS and draft Record of Decision has been published. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, they will not be used to establish eligibility for the objection process.

Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project and any project-specific amendment(s) during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with 36 CFR 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated comment opportunities.

If the potential amendment(s) is plan-level in scope then the amendment decision would be subject to the plan objection process of 36 CFR 219, Subpart B. Only those individuals and entities who submit substantive formal comments related to the potential plan amendment(s) during the opportunities for public comment as provided in 36 CFR 219, Subpart A may file a plan amendment(s) objection. The burden is on the objector to demonstrate compliance with requirements for objection (36 CFR 219.53).

• Forest Service SUP.

• Other permits as identified through scoping and the EIS analysis process.

Given the purpose and need, the responsible official will review the proposed action, the alternatives, and the environmental consequences to decide the following:

• Whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny BHR's application to amend their SUP for the adjustment of BHR's SUP area, the associated projects within the proposed SUP areas, and the projects within BHR's existing SUP boundary;

• The selection of a preferred alternative; and

• Whether to prescribe conditions needed for the protection of the environment on NFS lands.

• Whether or not to approve any forest plan amendments necessary as identified in the EIS to bring the project in compliance with the DNF LRMP. These decisions would be made in the record of decision, which would be issued following the publication of a final EIS and completion of the Forest Service objection process (36 CFR part 218, subparts A and B, and 36 CFR 219, Subpart B if necessary).

When proposing a potential forest plan amendment, regulation36 CFR 219.13(b)(2) requires the Responsible Official to identify which specific substantive requirements (36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11) are likely to be directly affected and therefore applicable to the potential amendments. The substantive requirements that are likely directly related to the purpose or effects of amendments to the forest plan scenery and recreation management settings are 36 CFR 219.8(b), 36 CFR 219.10(a), and 36 CFR 219.10(b).

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish in the Federal Register a six-month advance notice before establishment of proposed recreation fee sites and proposed special recreation permits. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees in local newspapers and other local publications for public comment. Most of the proposed recreation fees would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the proposed recreation fee site.

A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $60 per night for groups up to 20 people would be charged for CCC Group Campground.

Fee revenue would be used to enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs.

Once public involvement is complete, the proposed recreation fee site and proposed recreation fee will be reviewed by a Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Reservations for campgrounds and cabins could be made online at www.recreation.gov or by calling (877) 444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

Title of Collection: Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP).

OMB Control Number: 0524-0050.

Expiration Date of Current Approval: 01/31/2026.

Type of Request: Notice of intent to extend and revise a currently approved information collection.

NIFA is requesting a three-year extension for the current collection entitled “Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program.”

NIFA is also proposing to update the VMLRP application forms to ensure that the requirements align with 7 U.S.C. 3151a and 7 CFR part 3431, relevant Executive Orders and OMB Guidance, as well as the latest VMLRP program policies.

Abstract: In December 2003, the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA) was passed into law adding section 1415A to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997. This law established a new Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) (7 U.S.C. 3151a) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program of entering into agreements with veterinarians under which they agree to provide veterinary services in veterinarian shortage situations. The purpose of the program is to ensure an adequate supply of trained food animal veterinarians in shortage situations.

NIFA is requesting to extend and modify a currently approved information collection. NIFA will collect information from current VMLRP applicants and participants and from State Animal Health Officials. NIFA will use this information to assess the VMLRP program and to improve oversight of the program. NIFA proposes to revise all forms in the collection to align with the VMLRP requirements as found in 7 U.S.C. 3151a and 7 CFR part 3431, as well as relevant Executive Orders and OMB Guidance. NIFA also proposes to retire the Survey of Animal Health Officials Completing VMLRP Veterinary Shortage Nomination Form, Applicant Feedback Survey, Awardee Feedback Survey, Close Out Report, Post-Award Termination Survey and the Service Log.

Total Estimate of Burden: The estimated annual reporting burden for all VMLRP collection is as follows:

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Obtaining a Copy of the Information Collection: A copy of the information collection and related instructions may be obtained free of charge by contacting Laura Givens as directed above.

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this LTFV investigation on January 8, 2025. 1 On April 17, 2025, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation. 2 The deadline for the preliminary determination is now July 9, 2025.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 https://access.trade.gov . In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx .

The products covered by this investigation are float glass products from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted for consideration in this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 As discussed in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, Commerce preliminarily modified, in certain respects, the scope language that appeared in the Initiation Notice. The scope in Appendix I reflects the modifications.

In the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, Commerce established the deadline for parties to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs. 7 Commerce intends to issue a final scope decision with the final determinations of the LTFV and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of float glass products from China and Malaysia.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the China-wide entity, including the companies selected for individual examination: Panda Frame and Mirror Arts Co., Ltd. and Shandong Jinjing Science and Technology Stock Co., Ltd. (Shandong Jinjing). For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, 8 Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice. 9 In this investigation, we assigned a producer/exporter combination rate for the companies that are listed in the “Preliminary Determination” and eligible for separate rates.

We preliminarily granted a separate rate to certain separate rate respondents that we did not select for individual examination. 10 In calculating the rate for non-individually examined separate rate respondents in a non-market economy LTFV investigation, Commerce normally looks to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, which pertains to the calculation of the all-others rate in a market economy LTFV investigation, for guidance. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, normally this rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for those companies individually examined, excluding zero and de minimis dumping margins, and any dumping margins based entirely upon section 776 of the Act.

In cases where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for all individually investigated respondents are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts available (AFA), Commerce may use any reasonable method to assign a rate to the separate rate companies. 11 In this investigation, because we preliminarily find that the mandatory respondents are ineligible for an individually-calculated separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity subject to a rate based entirely on AFA, we preliminarily applied the simple average of the rates alleged in the petition, i.e., 246.68 percent, 12 to non-selected respondents eligible for a separate rate.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows: (1) for the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third-country exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese producer/exporter combination (or the China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.

To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion CVD proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted- average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we made no adjustment for domestic subsidy pass-through. Any such adjusted rates may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section's table of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.

Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting antidumping duty cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire. These suspension of liquidation instructions and cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, Commerce preliminarily applied total AFA to the China-wide entity in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the simple average of the petition rates to the non-selected separate rates. Because these rates are based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.

Because the mandatory respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce and Commerce preliminarily determines each of the mandatory respondents to have been uncooperative, we will not conduct any verification.

Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice. 13 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 14 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 15

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 16 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 17

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date, time, and location to be determined. Parties should confirm the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping duty determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On June 4, 2025, Shandong Jinjing requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that the provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months. 18 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) the preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register .

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation in the Federal Register on January 8, 2025. 1 On April 17, 2025, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination in this investigation. The deadline for the preliminary determination is now July 9, 2025. 2

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 https://access.trade.gov . In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx .

The products covered by this investigation are float glass products from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal comments submitted for consideration in this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 As discussed in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, Commerce preliminarily modified, in certain respects, the scope language that appeared in the Initiation Notice. The scope in Appendix I reflects the modifications.

In the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, Commerce established the deadline for parties to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs. 7 Commerce intends to issue a final scope decision with the final determinations of the LTFV and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of float glass products from the People's Republic of China and Malaysia.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act and normal value in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily based the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) on facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences. In addition, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily based the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Jinjing Technology Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (Jinjing Malaysia) on facts otherwise available, in part. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances do not exist for Jinjing Malaysia, Xinyi Energy Smart (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (Xinyi Malaysia), and all other producers and exporters not individually examined. However, Commerce found that critical circumstances exist for NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass). For a full description of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In this investigation, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Jinjing Malaysia and Xinyi Malaysia that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Accordingly, Commerce calculated the all-others rate using a weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged total U.S. sale values for the merchandise under consideration. 8

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 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

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 preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

On May 23, 2025, NMFS received a request from the USFWS Refuge for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to research, monitoring, and management activities in the South Farallon Islands, Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge off San Francisco, California. Following NMFS' review of the application, the USFWS Refuge submitted a revised version on June 16, 2025. The application was deemed adequate and complete on June 18, 2025. The USFWS Refuge's request is for take of five marine mammal species by Level B harassment only. Neither the USFWS Refuge, nor NMFS, expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge consists of several islands designated into four groups: the North Farallons, the Middle Farallons, the South Farallon Islands (the largest of the groups), and Noonday Rock. The North Farallons, Middle Farallons, and Noonday Rock were originally designated as the Farallon Refuge by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 (Executive Order 1043). In 1969, the South Farallon Islands were given Refuge-status. Congress further designated all these islands, except for the Southeast Farallon Island, as the Farallon Wilderness Area in 1974 (Pub. L. 93-550). More information on the history and management of the Refuge can be found in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS, 2009) and on its website ( https://www.fws.gov/refuge/farallon-islands/what-we-do ).

The USFWS Refuge has proposed several activities at the South Farallon Island in the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge that are intrinsically linked to the management of the Refuge and other natural resource research and monitoring activities, in accordance with the National Wildlife System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57, 111 Stat. 1252; 16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. ). Broadly, activities include several management actions ( i.e., island access and transit to and from via small motorboat, sailboat, and helicopter; habitat restoration, facilities upkeep including maintenance, repair, removal, and construction; and cultural resource upkeep) and research and monitoring actions ( i.e., wildlife (primarily seabirds) and plant research and oil spill monitoring). Field personnel and boat/helicopter use may occasionally cause incidental take via behavioral disturbance (Level B harassment) of pinniped species who reside year-round and haul-out on the South Farallon Islands.

Management and research activities, some of which are typically performed by Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue), typically occur year-round. However, given a shift in resource allocation, the USFWS Refuge is assisting Point Blue in some specific monitoring, research, and management activities. While the USFWS Refuge is currently planning on activities primarily occurring in the fall/winter of 2025 to 2026 (September through mid-March), some activities may also occur in the spring/summer (April through August).

Specifically, most of the seabird research would occur between mid-March and late August. Any plant surveys are expected to occur in the springtime (March through April) and in the late summer (mid-August through September). Any management activities, which includes construction and maintenance activities for the larger facilities, would occur between September 1 and March 15 to minimize disturbances to wildlife. Helicopters and small-motorized boats/sailboats would be used to transit personnel and supplies on and off the island. Helicopter use would only be used from September 1 through March 15 to avoid the breeding season for most of the seabirds and pinnipeds located on the island. Currently, any helicopter use that may be require is planned to occur from October to March to avoid a late-summer surge in California sea lion presence. Boat-use is planned for use when it is safe to do so (less likely in the fall to winter seasons as storms make boat landings dangerous) so more likely in the spring/summer time but some use in the fall/winter may be needed.

The proposed IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness, and will become effective upon written notification from the applicant to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance.

The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge consists of 211 acres (0.33 square miles (mi 2 )) located near the edge of the continental shelf. The proposed project would occur within the South Farallon Islands, which are located approximately 28 miles (mi; 45 kilometers (km)) offshore of San Francisco, California and contain an approximate land area of 120 acres (0.19 mi 2 ) across two islands (Southeast Farallon Island and West End Island) and several smaller islets. Of all of the Islands that make up the Refuge, only the Southeast Farallon Islands are inhabited and contain infrastructure as nearly all of the USFWS Refuge's work and activities occur on this island. These islands sit within the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, which is a known important habitat for groundfish species ( i.e., Farallon Island/Fanny Shoal area), salmon species ( i.e., Chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) and Coho ( Oncorhynchus kisutch )), and pelagic fish species ( i.e., northern anchovy ( Engraulis mordax ) and Pacific sardine ( Sardinops sagax )). The Southeast Farallon Island has two landings, North Landing and East Landing, where pinnipeds are known to haul-out and reside year-round.

To access the Southeast Farallon Island, small motorboats/sailboats, and helicopters are needed. Typically, personnel and cargo/supplies travel to and from the Southeast Farallon Island by motorboat/sailboat where they are then transferred to smaller 14 to 20 foot (ft (4.3 to 6.1 meters (m))) motorboats, which are hoisted by a derrick to one of two boat landings ( i.e., East Landing and North Landing). Boat landings occur approximately two days per month for supplies and personnel and typically take between one to three hours. Each boat landing consists of the launching of the boat with a single operator, and two to four other personnel assisting with the operations from land. Loading activities at North Landing occur at the water level during the intertidal phase and activities at the East Landing (the primary landing site) occur using a loading platform raised 30 ft (9.1 m) over the water.

However, given resource allocation constraints, the Southeast Farallon Island, which is normally inhabited year-round (and has been for several decades), will likely be vacant for most of the fall-winter period, starting in the fall of 2025. Because of this (as well as stormy weather during the fall/winter time-of-year), boat landings become more difficult and dangerous to the field personnel. When the island's support staff is not present, helicopters become the primary approach to transport staff and supplies/cargo on and off the Southeast Farallon Island. On the Southeast Farallon Island, helicopters are only allowed to land at the helipad from September 1 through March 15 annually, upon receiving appropriate authorization from the USFWS Refuge. For the rest of the year, there is a closure prohibiting helicopter usage. This is to protect sensitive wildlife during their breeding seasons.

To reduce impacts to marine mammals, the USFWS Refuge has developed a flight plan for the helicopter for landings and departures to both minimize impacts to wildlife and to maximize aircraft and crew safety. Generally, most of pinniped habitat is located away from the flight path, with exception of Mussel Flat, which lies near the southwestern flight path and cannot by avoided by USFWS Refuge staff (see figure 2).

The harassment of marine mammals is likely to occur given the presence of people and use of boats and helicopters (inclusive of presence and noise). Additionally, some California sea lions are known to haul-out near and on the helipad and may require hazing to safely relocate them. Hazing would occur according to section 109(h) of the MMPA, which exempts taking of marine mammals by government officials as part of official duties, including for the protection or welfare of marine mammals as in this case, from the MMPA's prohibition on unauthorized take of marine mammals. Takes of marine mammals resulting from hazing activities are not included in the incidental take proposed for authorization here and hazing is not discussed further.

Habitat restoration activities would consist of controlling non-native and invasive vegetation, which have been determined to be detrimental to nesting seabirds and other native vegetation. This invasive vegetation blocks the access to existing and potential seabird burrow breeding sites and competes with species and resources for native vegetation, such as Lasthenia maritima, which is used by surface-nesting seabirds for nesting materials. Other activities consist of the maintenance of artificial habitats that have been specifically constructed for seabirds. Two of these structures provide habitat for seabirds that nest in crevices while another structure provides a barrier against disturbance for seabirds. Two of these artificial habitat structures are located adjacent to the haul-out locations for California sea lions and Steller sea lions. The maintenance needed for these structures is sparse and only necessary every few years.

Other restoration activities may consist of the use or removal of excessive materials, such as older plumbing, electrical conduits, lumber, and other infrastructure materials, which are located throughout Southeast Farallon Island (primarily on the east and south sides of the island). If materials were reused, they would be used for artificial seabird nesting habitat creation in the upland areas away from the pinniped haul-out areas and habitat. If materials are removed, they would be removed by boat or helicopter (for more bulky/larger materials), which may necessitate hovering for a short period of time while the cargo is loaded or unloaded.

For all of these activities, marine mammals would likely be harassed behaviorally from the presence of humans collecting and transferring the materials and performing the activities and from the use of boats/helicopters to remove the materials. USFWS Refuge estimates approximately one to three days would be needed to remove excess material by either boat or helicopter during any effective period of the proposed project.

On the Southeast Farallon Island, many aging structures from the 19th and mid-20th centuries still exist and may require work to remove, maintain, repair, or construct structures. The USFWS Refuge has developed a plan to downsize the infrastructure footprint on the Southeast Farallon Island, which involves removing potentially hazardous structures. Specifically, this will consist of a large demolition and construction project starting in September 2025 where a large water storage cistern on the east side of the Southeast Farallon Island would be dismantled and a new water catchment tank would be installed. Other major activities include the North Landing Boathouse roof and siding being replaced and necessary modifications being made to the houses, Powerhouse, and North Landing Boathouse to protect against vandalism and storms. This larger project is expected to take approximately one to two months and may occur either over a continuous period or intermittently in non-consecutive phases. The work needed and schedule are highly dependent on the contractor's ability to mobilize and the weather. Additionally, other repairs and activities would occur, including repairs and maintenance to the roofs of houses, the East Landing and North Landing derricks, the photovoltaic system at the Powerhouse, and the septic system. All major work would be expected to occur between September 1 through March 15 to minimize any disturbances to sensitive wildlife, including breeding seabirds and pupping pinnipeds.

Crews and supplies would arrive at the island mainly by helicopter with some boat support when safe to do so. Any cargo brought over would be delivered to the worksites via wheelbarrows and carts along pre-designated paths. Details on the helicopter and boat transports can be reviewed in the section above.

Marine mammals are expected to be behaviorally harassed via the use presence of humans, boats, and helicopters, and by the noise of the rotors and motors of the helicopters and boats. The presence of cargo and the construction noise ( i.e., not greater than mechanical tools, hammering, etc. ) may also cause harassment not expected to rise to a level exceeding behavioral harassment.

Proposed activities undertaken for the preservation and evaluation of cultural resources may be necessary by USFWS Refuge staff or assisting archaeologists. While Refuge policy specifically does not allow for the removal or destruction of any evaluated historical elements, some elements may need to be repaired or modified. For these activities, staff would need to continue to evaluate, remove, or reuse remnants of abandoned infrastructure (most of which was removed after 1969). Generally, these elements are located in the more upland areas of the Southeast Farallon Island, away from the intertidal and pinniped haul-out/pupping areas. However, the behavioral harassment of marine mammals may still occur due to human presence in and around hauled-out pinnipeds.

A familiar activity on the Southeast Farallon Island, wildlife research and monitoring has been conducted for decades to examine and understand the life histories, populations, diet, productivity, and other ecological aspects of wildlife in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. To date, most of the work has been performed by Point Blue, who are currently covered for take incidental to some of these activities on the Southeast Farallon Island under a rulemaking and LOA (86 FR 27991, May 25, 2021). However, given changes to the allocation of resources, Point Blue may be reducing their presence on the Southeast Farallon Island for the fall/winter period and the USFWS Refuge will be taking over some of these responsibilities. Additionally, this provides the USFWS Refuge with the opportunity to implement their recently completed plant monitoring protocol.

The USFWS Refuge plans to take over some of the seabird research activities Point Blue originally was performing. These activities include observational and marking ( i.e., netting and banding for capture-mark-recapture) studies of breeding seabirds. While some of these activities occur inland, others will require field personnel to travel to the shoreline where marine mammals could be present to conduct observational seabird research. Observational research will occur using an observation blind or censusing shorebirds and typically involves one to two observers. Any shoreline visits are typically brief (approximately 15 minutes in duration) during the fall/winter. In the spring/summer, seabird observers are typically present for two to five hours daily at the North Landing location to conduct observational studies on breeding Common Murres ( Uria aalge ). Seabird research activities typically require occasional visits to the island, currently estimated as a single three-day visit each month from September to February (an estimated total of 18 days).

Other activities on the Southeast Farallon Island include plant monitoring where one to three personnel would travel to different plots around the uplands of the island. These activities are expected to occur primarily between mid-March and early April over seven days.

For these activities, pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed by the presence of field personnel more than any of the activities themselves. Most of the seabird and plant surveys would occur in areas away from the coastal haul-out sites; however, some surveys may necessitate that field personnel travel to areas where pinnipeds are located.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail further on in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) 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' Pacific and Alaska SARs (90 FR 13344, March 21, 2025). All values presented in table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2024 SARs) and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

As indicated above, all five species (with five managed stocks) in table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While Guadalupe fur seals ( Arctocephalus townsendi ) have been reported in the area, their occurrence is considered extremely rare in that the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. Additionally, California (southern) sea otters ( Enhydra lutris nereis ) may be found in the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (see https://farallones.org/sanctuary-wildlife/marine-mammals/ ), and possibly nearshore to the South Farallon Island. However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see https://www.fws.gov/species/southern-sea-otter-enhydra-lutris-nereis ) and therefore not discussed further in this document.

For more details on the species that are likely to occur near the project area and may be taken by the USFWS Refuge's proposed activities, see the USFWS Refuge's IHA application, the SARs, and NMFS' website.

California sea lion breeding areas are on islands located in southern California, in western Baja California, Mexico, and the Gulf of California. Rookery sites in southern California are limited to the San Miguel Islands and the southerly Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente (Carretta et al., 2017). Males establish breeding territories during May through July on both land and in the water. Females come ashore in mid-May and June where they give birth to a single pup approximately four to five days after arrival and will nurse pups for about a week before going on their first feeding trip. Postpartum females will alternate feeding trips with nursing bouts until the pup is weaned between four and ten months of age (Melin et al., 2000).

Adult and juvenile males will migrate as far north as British Columbia, Canada while females and pups remain in southern California waters in the non-breeding season. In warm water (El Niño) years, some females are found as far north as Washington and Oregon, presumably following prey. On the Farallon Islands, California sea lions haul out in many intertidal areas year round, fluctuating from several hundred to several thousand animals.

Elevated numbers of strandings of California sea lion pups occurred in Southern California beginning in January 2013, and NMFS declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME). The UME was confined to pup and yearling California sea lions, many of which were emaciated, dehydrated, and underweight for their age. A change in the availability of sea lion prey, especially sardines, a high value food source for nursing mothers, was a likely contributor to the large number of strandings. Sardine spawning grounds shifted further offshore in 2012 and 2013, and, while other prey were available (market squid and rockfish), these may not have provided adequate nutrition in the milk of sea lion mothers supporting pups, or for newly-weaned pups foraging on their own. Although the pups showed signs of some viruses and infections, findings indicated that this event was not caused by disease, but rather by the lack of high quality, close-by food sources for nursing mothers. Current evidence does not indicate that this UME was caused by a single infectious agent, though a variety of disease-causing bacteria and viruses were found in samples from sea lion pups. Investigating and identifying the cause of this UME was a true public-private effort with many collaborators. The investigative team examined multiple potential explanations for the high numbers of malnourished California sea lion pups observed on the island rookeries and stranded on the mainland in 2013. Per the NMFS website, “the UME was attributed to malnutrition in juvenile sea lions due to ecological factors causing prey shifts. These prey shifts were most likely driven by unusual oceanographic conditions at the time due to the “Warm Water Blob” and El Niño.” The UME was closed in 2016. For more information, see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2013-2017-california-sea-lion-unusual-mortality-event-california.

Pacific harbor seals inhabit near-shore coastal and estuarine areas from Baja California, Mexico, to the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. They are divided into two subspecies: P. v. stejnegeri in the western North Pacific, near Japan, and P. v. richardii in the northeast Pacific Ocean. The latter subspecies occurs along the California coast. The California stock of harbor seals ranges from Mexico to the Oregon-California border. In California, 400 to 600 harbor seal haul-out sites are widely distributed along the mainland and offshore islands, and include rocky shores, beaches and intertidal sandbars (Hanan, 1996; Lowry et al., 2008; Carretta et al., 2024).

Harbor seals mate at sea, and females give birth during the spring and summer, although the pupping season varies with latitude. Pups are nursed for an average of 24 days and are ready to swim minutes after being born. Harbor seal pupping takes place at many locations, and rookery size varies from a few pups to many hundreds of pups. Pupping generally occurs between March and June, and molting occurs between May and July.

On the Farallon Islands, approximately 40 to 120 Pacific harbor seals haul out in the intertidal areas (Point Blue, unpublished data).

Northern elephant seals range in the eastern and central North Pacific Ocean, from as far north as Alaska to as far south as Mexico. Northern elephant seals spend much of the year, generally about nine months, in the ocean. They are usually underwater, diving to depths of about 1,000 to 2,500 ft (330 to 800 m) for 20- to 30-minute intervals with only short breaks at the surface. They are rarely seen out at sea for this reason. While on land, they prefer sandy beaches.

The northern elephant seal breeding population is distributed from central Baja California, Mexico to the Point Reyes Peninsula in northern California. Along this coastline, there are 13 major breeding colonies. Northern elephant seals breed and give birth primarily on offshore islands (Stewart et al., 1994), from December to March (Stewart and Huber, 1993). Males feed near the eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska, and females feed farther south, south of 45° N (Stewart and Huber, 1993; Le Boeuf et al., 1993).

In mid-December, adult males begin arriving at rookeries, closely followed by pregnant females on the verge of giving birth. Females give birth to a single pup, generally in late December or January (Le Boeuf and Laws, 1994) and nurse their pups for approximately four weeks (Reiter et al., 1991). Upon pup weaning, females mate with an adult male and then depart the islands. The last adult breeders depart the islands in mid-March. The spring peak of elephant seals on the rookery occurs in April, when females and immature seals (approximately one to four years old) arrive at the colony to molt (a one-month process) (USFWS, 2013). The year's new pups remain on the island throughout both of these peaks, generally leaving by the end of April (USFWS, 2013). The lowest numbers of elephant seals present at rookeries occurs during June, July, and August, when sub-adult and adult males molt. Another peak number of young seals returns to the rookery for a haul-out period in October, and at that time, some individuals undergo partial molt (Le Boeuf and Laws, 1994).

Northern elephant seals are present on the islands and in the waters surrounding the South Farallones year-round for either breeding or molting; however, they are more abundant during breeding and peak molting seasons (Le Boeuf and Laws, 1994; Sydeman and Allen, 1999). Northern elephant seals began recolonizing the South Farallon Islands in the early 1970s (Stewart et al., 1994) at which time the colony grew rapidly. Point Blue's average monthly counts of elephant seals at the South Farallon Islands from 2000 to 2009 ranged from 20 individuals in July to nearly 500 individuals in November (USFWS, 2013).

Steller sea lions consist of two distinct population segments (DPSs): The western and eastern DPSs divided at 144° W longitude (Cape Suckling, Alaska). The western segment of Steller sea lions inhabits central and western Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, as well as coastal waters, and breed in Asia ( e.g., Japan and Russia) (Young et al., 2024). The eastern DPS includes animals born east of Cape Suckling, AK (144° W), and includes sea lions living in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California (Young et al., 2024).

Despite the wide-ranging movements of juveniles and adult males in particular, exchange between rookeries by breeding adult females and males (other than between adjoining rookeries) appears low, although males have a higher tendency to disperse than females (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 1995; Trujillo et al., 2004; Hoffman et al., 2006). While historically breeding at rookeries located in Southeast Alaska, British Columbia (Canada), Oregon, and California, a new rookery has been established on the outer Washington coast at the Carroll Island and Sea Lion Rock complex (Stocking and Wiles, 2021). This northward shift in the overall breeding distribution has occurred, with a contraction of the range in southern California and new rookeries established in southeastern Alaska (Hastings et al., 2017).

An estimated 50 to 150 Steller sea lions are located along the Farallon Islands (Point Blue, unpublished data). Overall, counts of non-pups at trend sites in California and Oregon have been relatively stable or increasing slowly since the 1980s (Muto et al., 2017). The South Farallon Island is one of two breeding colonies at the southern end of the Steller sea lion's range.

The northern fur seal is endemic to the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. Breeding rookeries extend from the Sakhalin Island in the Sea of Okhotsk, Commander Islands, Pribilof, and Aleutian Islands in the Bering Sea, and the Farallon and San Miguel Islands off California (Gelatt and Gentry, 2018). Two stocks are recognized in U.S. waters: the Eastern North Pacific and the California stocks. The Eastern North Pacific stock ranges from southern California during winter to the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof Island in the Bering Sea during summer (Muto et al., 2018). The California stock originated with immigrants from the Pribilof Islands and Russian populations that recolonized San Miguel Island during the late 1950s or early 1960s after northern fur seals were extirpated from California in the 1700s and 1800s (NMFS, 2025). Most northern fur seals at Point Blue research sites are expected to be from the California stock, though some may be from the Eastern North Pacific stock, as adult females and pups from the Pribilof Islands move through the Aleutian Islands into waters off Oregon and California (Muto et al., 2019).

The northern fur seal spends a significant amount of its time at sea, typically in areas of upwelling along the continental slopes, in sea valleys and submarine canyons and over seamounts where it undertakes opportunistic foraging activities (Kajimura, 1981). The remainder of its life is spent on or near rookery islands or haul-outs. While at sea, northern fur seals usually occur singly or in pairs, although larger groups can form in waters rich with prey (Antonelis and Fiscus, 1980; Kajimura, 1981). Northern fur seals dive to relatively shallow depths to feed: 100 to 200 m (328.1 to 656.2 ft) for females, and <400 m (<1,313.34 ft) for males (Geobel et al., 1991; Sterling and Ream, 2004). Tagged adult female fur seals were shown to remain within 200 km (124.3 mi) of the shelf break (Pelland et al., 2014).

Northern fur seals likely numbered in excess of 100,000 animals at the Farallon Islands before being locally extirpated by sealers in the 1800's (Pyle et al., 2001). After more than a 150-year absence, northern fur seals recolonized the Farallon Islands in the 1970's and the first confirmed pup was born in 1996 (Pyle et al., 2001). The Farallon Islands continue to be a breeding site for northern fur seals, with over 1,000 pups born each season (Point Blue, unpublished data). Fur seals in the Farallon Islands typically begin pupping in mid-July with peak population and pup production in late August to early September. A study by Lee et al. (2018) found that three colonies of northern fur seals ( i.e., South Farallon, San Miguel, and Bogoslof) are all experiencing population growth at levels of 34 percent, 45 percent, and 59 percent, respectively, but were also all growing at rates determined to be the fastest for fur seals worldwide.

This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Visual and acoustic stimuli generated by the appearance of field personnel and motorboat/helicopter operations may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled out on the South Farallon Islands. This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity ( e.g., personnel presence and motorboats/helicopters) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take. This section provides background information on potential effects of these activities. For a discussion of the manner in which the mitigation measures will be implemented, and how the mitigation measures will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity, see the Proposed Mitigation section below.

Reactions to human presence, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart 2007). These behavioral reactions from marine mammals are often shown as: changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle responses or aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas; and/or flight responses ( e.g., pinnipeds flushing into the water from haul-outs or rookeries). If a marine mammal does react briefly to human presence by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if visual stimuli from human presence displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush harbor seals off haul-out sites (Allen et al., 1985; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; Ruiz-Mar et al., 2022; Bankhead et al., 2023). The Hawaiian monk seal ( Neomonachus schauinslandi ) has been shown to avoid beaches that have been disturbed often by humans (Kenyon, 1972; Gerrodette and Gilmartin, 1990). In one case, human disturbance appeared to cause Steller sea lions to desert a breeding area at Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, Alaska (Kenyon, 1962), a behavior demonstrated at other locations as well (Kucey, 2005; Chayahara et al., 2024).

The appearance of field personnel may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of any pinnipeds hauled out at research sites. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of field personnel ( e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions to constitute behavioral harassment, or Level B harassment takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds that flee some distance or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the presence of field personnel are behaviorally harassed, and thus subject to the taking by Level B harassment. Animals that respond to the presence of field personnel by becoming alert, but do not move or change the nature of locomotion as described, are not considered to have been subject to behavioral harassment.

The USFWS Refuge has indicated that they may require the use of small waterborne vessels ( i.e., small motorboats and sailboats) to deliver both personnel and supplies to and from the South Farallon Islands. Previous studies have been performed where the results demonstrate that pinnipeds generally return to their sites and do not permanently abandon haul-out sites after exposure to motorboats (discussed further below for Henry and Hammil (2001) and Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007)).

In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the impacts of small boats ( i.e., kayaks, canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on harbor seal haul-out behavior in Metis Bay, Quebec, Canada. During that study, the authors noted that the most frequent disturbances ( n =73) were caused by lower speed, lingering kayaks, and canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to motorboats (27.8 percent) conducting high-speed passes. The seal's flight reactions could be linked to a surprise factor by kayaks and canoes, which approach slowly, quietly, and low on the water making them look like predators. However, the authors note that, once the animals were disturbed, there did not appear to be any significant lingering effect on the recovery of numbers to their pre-disturbance levels. In conclusion, the study showed that boat traffic at current levels had only a temporary effect on the haul-out behavior of harbor seals in the Metis Bay area.

In 2004, Acevedo-Gutierrez and Johnson (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haul-out sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites, categorized the vessel types, and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances that were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) away, respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that, on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haul-out site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007).

The potential for striking marine mammals is a concern with vessel traffic. Typically, the reasons for vessel strikes are fast transit speeds, lack of maneuverability, or not seeing the animal because the boat is so large. USFWS Refuge's staff and field personnel will access areas at slow transit speeds in small boats that are easily maneuverable, minimizing any chance of any accidental strikes.

Related to helicopters, Efoymson et al. (2001) noted that the key stressor for low-altitude overflights of military aircraft is primarily due to sound, however the visual and physical ( i.e., the aircraft itself) stimuli could also act as a stressors. Animals (including pinnipeds) have previously demonstrated mixed reactions, likely driven by importance of habitat and site use, habitation, and proximity to the helicopter/aircraft (either due to the visual and/or acoustic stimulus) (Anderson, 2007). At Phoca Reef on San Nicolas Island, California, harbor seals displayed no behavioral reaction to the presence of a helicopter within audible range (U.S. Navy, 2020). Richardson et al. (1995) documents several behavioral reactions of marine mammals to aircraft (see section 9.2). Generally, the findings indicate that aircraft overflights traversing at low altitudes can cause behavioral reactions ( i.e., alert, startle, rapid movement responses) in harbor seals that are hauled out, causing them to escape to the water. Similar behaviors have been noted for ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ) and bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ) (although with somewhat of mixed responses where not all animals went into the water), northern sea lions, and northern fur seals (Richardson et al., 1995, Born et al., 1998). Northern elephant seals and California sea lions on San Miguel Island in California were noted as less responsive than harbor seals. Highly dependent on the hovering altitude of the helicopter, behaviors ranging from alerting reactions to head raising to flushing to the water were elicited from Northern elephant seals and California sea lions (Richardson et al., 1995). These sudden movements and panicked responses have been known to lead to death/injury by trampling or separation of pups from mothers. In Richardson et al. (1995), helicopters are acknowledged as causing more disturbance than fixed-wing aircraft, likely given the lower altitudes the helicopters can travel and the sound emitting from the rotor.

Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance is qualitatively different from the flight response, but also differs in the magnitude of the response ( i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc. ). Often avoidance is temporary, and animals return to the area once the noise has ceased. Acute avoidance responses have been observed in captive porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b; Kastelein et al., 2015a; Kastelein et al., 2015b; Kastelein et al., 2018). Short-term avoidance of seismic surveys, low frequency emissions, and acoustic deterrents have also been noted in wild populations of odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Goold and Fish, 1998; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Hiley et al., 2021) and to some extent in mysticetes (Malme et al., 1984; McCauley et al., 2000; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not occur ( e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). While NMFS acknowledges that most research and literature cited here is related to cetaceans, who are not expected to be harassed or taken by USFWS Refuge's specified activities, we include these to provide context as pinnipeds behaviorally react in a similar manner when expected to an external stimulus ( e.g., human presence, noise, etc. ) when onshore or in the water.

While NMFS expects that hauled out pinnipeds may avoid the USFWS Refuge field personnel and/or motorboats/helicopter, we do not expect that these effects will be more than temporary. The pinnipeds on the South Farallon Islands have high site fidelity; any external stimuli would be fleeting, and easily avoidable, meaning that the pinnipeds, if performing avoidance behaviors during activities, would be able to resume their original behaviors once the stimulus has ended.

A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response ( e.g., directed movement, rate of travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (Evans and England, 2001). There are limited data on flight response for marine mammals in water; however, there are examples of this response in species on land. For instance, the probability of flight responses in Dall's sheep ( Ovis dalli dalli ) (Frid, 2003), hauled out ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ) (Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant ( Branta bernicla nigricans ), and Canada geese ( B. canadensis ) increased as a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft more directly approached groups of these animals (Ward et al., 1999). However, it should be noted that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the response.

Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention ( i.e., when a response consists of increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects have generally not been observed in marine mammals, but studies involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates and efficiency ( e.g., Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through reduction of fitness ( e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both ( e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998).

Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive behavioral responses.

There are other ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. They are most likely to be consequences of stampeding (which is typically a response to startle and/or avoidance behaviors), a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus. These situations are: (1) pinnipeds falling when entering the water at high-relief locations; (2) extended separation of mothers and pups; and (3) crushing of pups by larger animals during a stampede. However, NMFS does not expect any of these scenarios to occur at the South Farallon Islands. As stated, there is the risk of injury if animals stampede towards shorelines with precipitous relief ( e.g., cliffs); however, field personnel will take precautions, such as moving slowly and staying close to the ground, to ensure that any flushes do not result in a stampede of pinnipeds heading to the sea. Per previous actions with Point Blue, another organization that performs research activities on the South Farallon Islands, reports that stampedes have been extremely rare at their survey locations in the past. Furthermore, no research activities would occur at or near pinniped rookeries. Breeding animals are concentrated in areas where field personnel would not visit, so NMFS does not expect mother and pup separation or crushing of pups during flushing. If pups should be present at any USFWS Refuge research sites, field personnel will avoid visiting that particular site.

Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud impulsive sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).

An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses ( e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.

Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance ( e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.

Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals ( e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations ( e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be classified as “distress.” However distress is an unlikely result of these projects based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar research and monitoring projects.

There are no habitat modifications associated with the proposed activity other than the presence of USFWS Refuge field personnel to perform the proposed activities and to monitor animals. No substantial construction is anticipated to occur for this proposed project, only activities that rise to the level of maintenance, removal, and installation, which are all expected to be over a small footprint when compared to the entire size of the available habitat on the South Farallon Islands. While field personnel may be somewhat residential in some areas during the work necessary for the proposed activities, the field personnel will be traveling to different research sites indicating that their presence in any one specific area is most likely temporary. Thus, NMFS does not expect that the proposed activity would have any effects on marine mammal habitat and NMFS expects that there will be no long- or short-term physical impacts to pinniped habitat on the South Farallon Islands.

Marine mammal prey ( e.g., fish) varies by species, season, and location. However, as all of the USFWS Refuge's proposed activities are occurring onshore and the prey species for pinnipeds are located in the ocean, NMFS does not expect the proposed activities to affect the habitat, availability, or presence of prey for pinnipeds.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform 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).

Takes proposed for authorization would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of behavioral reactions for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to field personnel and the operation of their equipment and associated noise. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.

Here we describe the proposed estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.

The occurrence data are based upon the USFWS Refuge's unique expertise in this area and their local, collaborative work with other partners, such as Point Blue who work in the Farallon Islands (Point Blue Conservation Science, unpubl. data; G. McChesney, USFWS, pers. obs). NMFS further reviewed other nearby and recent actions when considering the proposed take numbers ( i.e., the Point Blue Conservation Science's seabird research activities in central California (80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015; 81 FR 34978, June 1, 2016; 82 FR 31759, July 10, 2017; 83 FR 31372, July 5, 2018; 85 FR 9740, February 20, 2020; and 86 FR 27991, May 25, 2021). The USFWS Refuge's requested take authorization numbers were calculated based on the number of each species generally present on the islands (particularly near haul-outs, work areas, helicopter flight paths, and near boat landings) and frequency of the planned activities. USFWS Refuge has stated that the management and research activities are expected to affect all ages and sexes of pinnipeds, except very young pups because USFWS staff and contractors will not enter or approach breeding areas close enough to cause a disturbance to young pups or their mothers.

NMFS determined that USFWS Refuge's requests were generally reasonable. However, for two species ( i.e., California sea lions and harbor seals), after reviewing the monitoring reports for previous actions, we propose to authorize higher numbers of takes than requested by USFWS Refuge. Specifically, USFWS Refuge has requested 20,000 and 200 takes by Level B harassment for California sea lions and harbor seals, respectively. NMFS proposes increasing the take of California sea lions to 40,000, given one of the monitoring reports for 86 FR 27991 (May 25, 2021) described 37,866 takes of this species. For harbor seals, NMFS proposed an increase to 300 individuals; given the monitoring report for 83 FR 31372 (July 5, 2018) described 204 takes. USFWS Refuge agreed with NMFS' proposed take increases for these two species and these values have been incorporated herein.

The results of this analysis can be found in table 2, where the number of takes that NMFS proposes for authorization are presented.

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).

In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:

(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and

(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.

The USFWS Refuge proposed to implement several mitigation measures to reduce potential takes, by Level B harassment, on pinnipeds. NMFS concurred with USFWS Refuge's proposed measures. These measures include:

• Limiting the proposed project activities during pinniped pupping seasons;

• Limiting all major construction activities to the fall and winter to avoid the most sensitive times of the year for marine mammals;

• Prohibiting the use of helicopters between March 15 and September 1 to avoid the breeding season for marine mammals (use would only be allowed from September 1 through March 15);

• Providing limits to the number of visitors, provide supervision of visitors, and prohibited access for visitors to avoid marine mammal haul-out and breeding areas;

• Requiring training over protocol for staff and visitors to avoid disturbing marine mammals. The training would consist of a presentation by USFWS staff regarding the description of the marine mammals, their habitat needs, an explanation of the status of these species and their protection under the MMPA, and a description of the measures being taken to reduce effects to these species;

• Maintaining a safe distance for field personnel from marine mammals and not approaching any marine mammal while conducting research, unless it is absolutely necessary to flush a marine mammal in order to continue conducting research ( i.e., if a site cannot be accessed or sampled due to the presence of pinnipeds);

• Avoiding identified haul-out sides on the South Farallon Islands, to the extent practicable;

• Conduct seabird observations in an observation blind, shielded from the view of hauled-out pinnipeds where possible;

• Allowing helicopter operations only when the risk of injury to any marine mammal is low;

• Suspending operations if a dead or injured marine mammal is found near the project area and the death or injury of the animal could be attributable to USFWS Refuge activities. Any such takes will immediately be reported to the Office of Protected Resources ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov and ITP.potlock@noaa.gov ) and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator (562-980-3264);

• Avoiding visits to sites when pups are present or when species for which authorization has not been granted are present; and

• Monitoring for offshore predators and not approach hauled out pinnipeds if predators are present.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical to both 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 ( e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density);

• 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 ( e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species ( e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the activity; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure ( e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);

• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;

• Effects on marine mammal habitat ( e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and,

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

The USFWS Refuge will contribute to the knowledge of pinnipeds on the South Farallon Island by noting observations of: (1) unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.

Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to the USFWS Refuge's research activities will include observations made by the applicant. Information recorded will include species counts (with numbers of pups/juveniles) of animals present before approaching, numbers of observed disturbances (based on the scale below), and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the project activities, including location, date, and time of the event. For consistency, any reactions by pinnipeds to field personnel will be recorded according to a three-point scale, as shown in table 3. We specifically note that only observations of disturbance levels 2 and 3 would be recorded as takings. The lead biologist/project-lead in the field will serve as an observer to record the incidental take.

Furthermore, the following monitoring protocols for USFWS Refuge are proposed:

1. Record of date, time, and location (or closest point of ingress) of each visit to the research site;

2. Composition of the marine mammals sighted, such as species, gender, and life history stage ( e.g., adult, sub-adult, pup);

3. Information on the numbers (by species) of marine mammals observed during the activities;

4. Estimated number of marine mammals (by species) that may have been harassed during the activities;

5. Behavioral responses or modifications of behaviors that may be attributed to the specific activities and a description of the specific activities occurring during that time ( e.g., human approach, vessel approach, helicopter take-off/landing/flyover); and

6. Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.

In addition, observations regarding the number and species of any marine mammals observed (either in the water or hauled out at, or adjacent to, a research site) are recorded as part of field observations during research activities. Information regarding physical and biological conditions pertaining to a site, as well as the date and time that research was conducted, will also be recorded. This information will be incorporated into a monitoring report (along with other information, as required below in the Reporting section) for NMFS and all raw data will be provided.

The USFWS Refuge would be required to submit an annual draft summary report on all research activities and marine mammal monitoring results to NMFS within 90 days following the end of the project activities or 60 calendar days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHA for similar activity at the same location, whichever comes first. The draft summary report would include an overall description of the research activities completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated raw PSO data sheets (in electronic spreadsheet format). Specifically, the report must include:

• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;

• Observer locations during marine mammal monitoring; and

• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of observer 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 must be reported:

• Name of the observer who sighted the animal(s) and observer location and activity at the time of the sighting;

• Time of the sighting;

• Identification of the animal(s) ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), observer confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;

• Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);

• Estimated number of animals by cohort ( e.g., adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc. );

• Animal's closest point of approach;

• Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations ( e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the activity ( e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, etc. );

• Number of marine mammals detected, by species; and

• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation, a description of specified actions that ensured, and resulting changes in behavior of the animal(s), if any.

If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days after the submission of the draft summary report, the draft report would constitute the final report. If USFWS Refuge received comments from NMFS, a final summary report addressing NMFS' comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Additionally, the USFWS Refuge would be required to undertake some situational reporting for the NMFS West Coast Regional Office (562-980-3230) for marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, or any unusual behaviors, distributions, or numbers of pinnipeds.

If, at any time, the specified activities clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a prohibited manner such as an injury ( i.e., Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, the USFWS Refuge would immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov and ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov ) and the NMFS West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator ((562) 980-3230). The report must include the following information:

1. Time and date of the incident;

2. Description of the incident;

3. Environmental conditions ( e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

4. Description of all marine mammal observations in the last 24 hours preceding the incident;

5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

6. Fate of the animal(s); and

7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if the equipment is available).

Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the USFWS Refuge to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The USFWS Refuge may not resume the activities until notified by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources.

In the event that the USFWS Refuge discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent ( e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), the USFWS Refuge would immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov and ITP.potlock@noaa.gov ) and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator ((562) 980-3230). The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the USFWS Refuge to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.

In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in any issued IHA ( e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the USFWS Refuge would report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov and ITP.potlock@noaa.gov ) and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator ((562) 980-3230) within 24 hours of the discovery. The USFWS Refuge would provide photographs, video footage (if available), or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

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 ( i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any impacts or responses ( e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any impacts or responses ( e.g., critical reproductive time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the baseline ( e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all of 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.

For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, NMFS does not expect USFWS Refuge's proposed specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance that would be expected to negatively impact an individual animal's fitness, or result in injury, serious injury, or mortality. Although USFWS Refuge's activities may disturb marine mammals, NMFS expects those impacts to occur to localized groups of animals at or near survey and activity sites. Behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short duration (ranging from approximately 15 minutes for visits at most locations, up to 2 to 5 hours from April-August) of the research activities. All major construction work (specific to the facilities maintenance, repair, removal, and minor construction activities) would be limited to occur only from September 1 through March 15 to avoid disturbances to wildlife. Boat landings are expected to last approximately 1 to 3 hours and would be localized to one of two specific landing areas ( i.e., East Landing and North Landing). During seasons where the weather is less than optimal and safe for boat landings (much of the fall-winter period, September 1 through March 15), helicopters would be used to transport equipment and personnel, with a prohibition on helicopter use the rest of the year to avoid disturbance to sensitive wildlife and breeding/pupping activities. Minor and brief responses including short-duration startle reactions, are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. These short duration disturbances (in many cases animals are expected to return within a short period of time) will generally allow marine mammals to reoccupy haul-outs relatively quickly; therefore, these disturbances would not be anticipated to result in long-term disruption of important behaviors. No surveys will occur at or near rookeries as field personnel will have limited access to the South Farallon Islands during the pupping season and will not approach sites should pups be observed. Furthermore, breeding animals tend to be concentrated in areas that field personnel are not scheduled to visit. Therefore, NMFS does not expect mother and pup separation or crushing of pups during stampedes.

Regarding effects to animals on the South Farallon Islands, field personnel will delay ingress into the landing areas, where possible, until after the pinnipeds enter the water and will cautiously operate vessels at slow speeds. Some limited effects from helicopters have been known to occur (see the Effects section), but any behavioral effects are expected to be temporary and fleeting, given the helicopter would be primarily transiting, landing, or taking off. To reduce effects, USFWS Refuge would only allow helicopter operations from September 1 through March 15; all other times of the year helicopter use would be prohibited, which would avoid the breeding season for marine mammals on the South Farallon Islands. Limited access would be permitted to pinniped pupping areas so mother-pup separation is not expected to occur. Lastly, the helicopter flight path has been developed to minimize disturbances to wildlife as most pinniped habitat (with the exception of Mussel Flat) located away from the flight path.

In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:

• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;

• No take by Level A harassment is expected, or is proposed for authorization;

• The intensity of anticipated takes by Level B harassment is relatively low for all stocks. Level B harassment would be in the form of behavioral disturbance, resulting in temporary avoidance of the project areas and locations where USFWS Refuge staff and contractors are working;

• Given pinnipeds are carnivores, no prey species ( i.e., fish) would be impacted by the proposed activities or would only be temporarily impacted for a short duration during in-water activities ( i.e., small motorboat and sailboat use). Therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal foraging is not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts on their populations;

• No impacts to pinniped habitat are anticipated; and

• Only limited behavioral disturbance in the form of short-duration startle reactions is expected, and mitigation requirements employed by field personnel ( e.g., moving slowly, hushed voices) should further decrease disturbance levels.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers (see 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.

The instances of take NMFS has proposed to authorize is below one-third of the estimate stock abundance for all species. The number of animals proposed for authorization that could be taken from these stocks would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks' abundances even if each estimate taking occurred to a new individual. While there is a potential for some individuals to be taken multiple times per day, USFWS Refuge staff and contractors would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the USFWS Refuge for conducting research, monitoring, and management activities on the South Farallon Islands, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities.

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the USFWS Refuge's proposed research, monitoring, and management activities. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:

• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).

• The request for renewal must include the following:

(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).

(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.

• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

This is a request for extension of an approved information collection. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Regional Office (AKR), is the sponsor of this information collection. This information collection contains applications, permits, and reports required under the Community Quota Entity (CQE) Program.

NMFS AKR manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to prepare and amend fishery management plans for any fishery in waters under its jurisdiction. The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS AKR manage fishing for Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis ) through regulations established under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773c (Halibut Act).

The CQE Program is a Federal program administered by NMFS. The CQE Program allocates to eligible communities in Alaska a portion of the harvest quotas for groundfish, halibut, crab, and prohibited species. The allocations provide these communities with the means for starting or supporting commercial fisheries activities that will result in an ongoing, regionally based, fisheries-related economy. Participating communities are represented by a CQE, which is a NMFS-approved non-profit organization.

Under the Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program, a CQE may purchase commercial halibut and sablefish quota share (QS) for lease to residents of the eligible community. Under the Charter Halibut Limited Access Program, a CQE may request community charter halibut permits for use in southeast Alaska and the central Gulf of Alaska by charter vessel operators designated by the CQE. Under the License Limitation Program (LLP), a CQE may request non-trawl groundfish LLP licenses endorsed for Pacific cod in the central or western Gulf of Alaska for use on vessels designated by the CQE. More information on the CQEs and the CQE Program is provided on the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/sustainable-fisheries/community-quota-and-license-programs-community-quota-entities.

This information collection is required in Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300 Subpart E and Part 679. The eligible communities and the community governing body that recommends the CQE are listed in Table 21 to 50 CFR part 679.

This collection contains applications used by a nonprofit corporation to become a CQE; by CQEs to receive non-trawl groundfish LLP licenses and Charter Halibut Permits (CHPs); by CQEs to transfer or receive IFQ QS; by CQEs to transfer IFQ to an eligible community resident or non-resident; and by CQEs to transfer between commercial halibut IFQ and halibut guided angler fish (GAF). In addition, this collection contains two reporting requirements: an annual report and an authorization letter. Annually, each CQE must submit a report describing its business operations and fishing activities for each eligible community it represents. CQEs requesting LLP groundfish licenses must annually submit an authorization letter that assigns each community LLP license to a user and vessel.

The type of information collected includes information on the applicants, transferors, transferees, authorized representatives, and communities represented, as well as information on the procedures, criteria, administrative activities, business operations, community fishing activities, sweep-up information, certificate and licensing information, and fishing activities pertaining to the application.

NMFS requires this information for fisheries management and to evaluate the ability of a specific CQE to represent an eligible community. NMFS uses the information collected to establish eligibility of the CQEs; review each CQE's business operations and fishing activity; monitor participation of the eligible communities in the CQE Program and associated limited access programs; and gather information on distribution and use among these communities of LLP groundfish licenses, CHPs, and halibut and sablefish QS and IFQ.

All of the forms, except for the Application for Community Charter Halibut Permit at § 300.67(k), can now be submitted electronically via email. These forms will be updated accordingly to clarify that electronic submission is allowed.

The applications are available as fillable PDFs on the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/alaska-community-quota-entity-applications that may be downloaded, emailed, printed, faxed, or delivered to NMFS, with the exception of the Application for Community Charter Halibut Permit at § 300.67(k), which may be only submitted by mail, hand delivery, or facsimile. The CQE annual report must be mailed. The CQE authorization letter may be submitted as an attachment to an email.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0665.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 94.

Estimated Time per Response: Application for a Non-profit Corporation to be Designated as a CQE: 200 hours; Transfer applications: 2 hours; Application for a CQE to Receive a Non-trawl Groundfish LLP License: 20 hours; Application for Community Charter Halibut Permit: 1 hour; CQE Annual Report: 40 hours; CQE LLP Authorization Letter: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,620 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $895 in recordkeeping and reporting costs.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits; Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ); The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773c).

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection request. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Title: Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps (OMB Control No. 3038-0089). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Sections 4r(a)(2)(A) and 2(h)(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act requires the reporting of pre-enactment and transition swaps. Regulations 46.2, 46.3, and 46.11 establish reporting requirements that are mandated by 4r and 2(h) and, thus, are necessary to implement the objectives of 4r and 2(h). Regulation 46.2 establishes swap counterparties' recordkeeping requirements for pre-enactment and transition swaps. Regulation 46.3 establishes reporting requirements for uncleared pre-enactment or transition swaps in existence on or after April 25, 2011, and throughout the existence of the swap. 2 Regulation 46.11 addresses the reporting of errors and omission in previously reported data. The data required to be compiled and maintained pursuant to the Part 46 regulations would be used by the Commission and other financial regulators for fulfillment of various regulatory mandates. The collection of information is needed to ensure that the CFTC and other regulators have access to data regarding pre-enactment and transition swaps, as required by the Commodity Exchange Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”).

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. On May 9, 2025, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 90 FR 19684 (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission did not receive any relevant comments on the 60-Day Notice.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of respondents and estimated burden hours. The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

• Recordkeeping:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,106.

Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 0.43 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,230 hours.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

• Reporting:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 499.

Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 1.4 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 716 hours.

Frequency of Collection: On Occasion.

• Total Annual Burden for the Collection: 13,946 hours

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Pursuant to Executive Order 14168 entitled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” the CFPB is modifying its Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) “CFPB.002—Supervision and Examination Records” to update the “Categories of Records” section, which included “gender” as an example of demographic information, to the term “sex.” The CFPB does not propose any additional modifications to the SORN at this time.

Pursuant to Executive Order 14168 entitled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” the CFPB is modifying its Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) “CFPB.016—CFPB Advisory Boards and Committees” to update the “Categories of Records” section, which included “gender” as an example of demographic information, to the term “sex.” The CFPB does not propose any additional modifications to the SORN at this time.

FSA Partner Connect is a unified digital front-end platform for entities participating in or involved in the administration of financial aid programs for postsecondary students authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), including postsecondary educational institutions (domestic and foreign), institutional third-party servicers, State higher education agencies (including State grant agencies), accrediting agencies, research organizations, third-party software providers, and financial entities (namely guaranty agencies, guaranty agency servicers, Federal loan servicers, Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) lenders, FFELP lender servicers), along with Department staff and contractors. FSA Partner Connect provides these entities and Department staff and contractors with centralized access to certain materials relating to the administration of title IV, HEA financial aid programs, such as websites, policy, guidance, training, and data, for use in managing title IV, HEA program eligibility and completing title IV, HEA aid administration tasks.

Previously, FSA provided certain similar services and applications through multiple websites, such as FSA Training Conference (previously fsaconferences.ed.gov ), Application for Approval to Participate in the Federal Student Financial Aid Programs (previously eligcert.ed.gov ), and SAIG Enrollment (previously fsawebenroll.ed.gov ). FSA Partner Connect integrates these distinct legacy lines of business into a single web-based platform to simplify the user experience while leveraging modernized, more secure technology. This approach not only improves user experience but also FSA's ability and capacity to provide rigorous and proactive oversight, thereby enabling more responsiveness to students and a reduction in compliance challenges through greater collaboration.

FSA Partner Connect provides each user with access to the following features on fsapartners.ed.gov:

(i) The Knowledge Center (available to the public, no account required), which provides informational resources related to the administration of title IV, HEA financial aid programs, such as FSA electronic announcements; FSA Dear Colleague Letters; current and historical versions of the Federal Student Aid Handbook, Foreign Schools Handbook, and New School Guide; and other FSA publications. (This includes content from the retired Information for Financial Aid Professionals (IFAP) website.)

(ii) FSA Training Conference information (available to the public, no account required), which provides training materials, upcoming conference details, and access to previous conference information including presentations.

(iii) The Summary Dashboard, which provides snapshots of certain data related to users' respective organizations including high-level operational data, important communications, notifications, and news tailored to users based on their respective roles.

(iv) A Partner Search and Profile feature, which provides users with the capability to search for and view comprehensive and consolidated postsecondary educational institution and third-party servicer information including program eligibility, official contact information, and postsecondary educational institution relationship information, which is a list of institutions that a postsecondary educational institution has a direct funding or reporting relationship with and of third-party servicers that provide a service to the postsecondary educational institution.

(v) A Student, Parent, and Borrower Search and Profile feature, which allows users to search for and view comprehensive and consolidated account information for students, parents, and/or borrowers including award and disbursement details, StudentAid.gov transactional submissions, Pell and Subsidized Direct Loan eligibility usage, and credit check information. (The platform also provides a view-only version of StudentAid.gov to assist with inquiries from students, parents, and/or borrowers.)

(vi) The Application for Approval to Participate in the Federal Student Financial Aid Programs (more commonly referred to as the “E-App”), which postsecondary educational institutions complete to apply for and maintain participation in title IV, HEA programs.

(vii) The Third-Party Servicer (TPS) Inquiry Form, which obtains information to validate third-party servicer information reported to the Department by postsecondary educational institutions, as well as to collect additional information needed by the Department for effective oversight of postsecondary educational institutions and third-party servicers.

(viii) FSA cases pertaining to eligibility and oversight generated to manage E-App reviews, TPS Inquiry Form reviews, program reviews, audits, and other related oversight processes.

(ix) Various postsecondary educational institution reports and files including, but are not limited to, FSA's Weekly School File, which is a data extract of select demographic and eligibility-related data.

Access to FSA Partner Connect is limited to individuals and entities with active FSA Partner Connect accounts (collectively referred to herein as “authorized users”), which, among other things, contain the contact information of individuals affiliated with entities authorized to create accounts to request electronic access to the Department's Federal Student Aid's (FSA's) systems, including FSA Partner Connect, SAIG, Federal Tax Information SAIG (FTI-SAIG), the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) Processing System (FPS), the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), the Digital Customer Care (DCC) Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, the eZ-Audit system, the Electronic Cohort Default Rate (eCDR) system, the Financial Management System (FMS), and the Access and Identity Management System (AIMS), and to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS') Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system for purposes of administering programs authorized under title IV of the HEA. FSA Partner Connect stores and processes information to manage user accounts ( e.g., enroll users, manage and modify user roles, which includes, but is not limited to: managing access permissions, removing access, deactivating user accounts, and reactivating user accounts) and authorizes access to the Department systems referenced above. Additionally, FSA Partner Connect manages SAIG mailbox numbers, which are used to electronically transmit data to and receive data from Department systems.

The Department proposes to rescind the systems of records notices titled PEPS (18-11-09) and SAIG, Participation Management System (18-11-10). PEPS enabled the Department to administer the approval, periodic review, and oversight of postsecondary educational institutions that participate in the Federal student financial aid programs under title IV of the HEA. The SAIG, Participation Management System enabled the Department to process stored data from SAIG Enrollment forms, manage the assignment of SAIG mailbox numbers, and authorize users of the Department's systems for the purposes of administering programs authorized under title IV of the HEA. The Department is rescinding the systems of records notices that previously covered the PEPS and the SAIG, Participation Management System because the records previously covered by those systems are now covered by the FSA Partner Connect system of records notice.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Acting Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a new system of records notice titled “Federal Student Aid Partner Connect” (18-11-24) (FSA Partner Connect):

Table of Contents I. Background A. Current LFI Framework B. Current Insurance Supervisory Framework II. Proposed Changes A. LFI Framework Definition of “Well Managed” B. Insurance Supervisory Framework Definition of “Well Managed” III. Economic Analysis A. Baseline B. Proposal Relative to Baseline C. Analysis of Benefits and Costs 1. Benefits a. Supervisory Efficiency and Efficacy b. Reduction of Compliance Costs and Other Impediments to Growth 2. Costs D. Impact on Supervised Insurance Organizations E. Conclusion IV. Administrative Law Matters A. Solicitation of Comments and Use of Plain Language B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 D. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 Appendix A—Text of Proposed Large Financial Institution Rating System Appendix B—Text of Proposed Insurance Supervisory Framework I. Background

The Board supervises and regulates companies that control one or more banks (“bank holding companies”) and companies that are not bank holding companies that control one or more savings associations (“savings and loan holding companies,” and together with bank holding companies, “depository institution holding companies”). Congress gave the Board regulatory and supervisory authority for bank holding companies through the enactment of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (“BHC Act”). 1 The Board's regulation and supervision of savings and loan holding companies began in 2011 when provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”)  2 transferring supervision and regulation of savings and loan holding companies from the Office of Thrift Supervision to the Board took effect. 3 Upon this transfer, the Board became the federal supervisory agency for all depository institution holding companies, including a portfolio of depository institution holding companies significantly engaged in insurance activities (“supervised insurance organizations”). 4 The Board has developed supervisory ratings frameworks for its supervised entities, based on their size and complexity, to assess their financial and operational strength.

The Board adopted the Large Financial Institution (“LFI”) rating system (“LFI Framework”) in 2018 and issued related guidance in 2019. 5 The Board designed the LFI Framework to align with the Federal Reserve's supervisory programs and practices, enhance the clarity and consistency of supervisory assessments and communications of supervisory findings and implications, and provide transparency related to the supervisory consequences of a given rating. The LFI Framework applies to bank holding companies and non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations established under Regulation YY with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.

The LFI Framework evaluates whether a firm possesses sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations and comply with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection, through a range of conditions. It includes three components: (1) capital planning and positions; (2) liquidity risk management and positions; and (3) governance and controls. 6 Each component is rated based on a four-point non-numeric scale: Broadly Meets Expectations, 7 Conditionally Meets Expectations, 8 Deficient-1, 9 and Deficient-2. 10

The term “well managed” is defined in the BHC Act, 11 as are certain benefits to a firm from meeting this criteria. 12 In addition to being “well managed” under the LFI Framework, a large financial institution must be “well managed” at each of its depository institution subsidiaries to elect to be treated as a financial holding company, which is a designation created by statute and that permits a firm making such an election to engage in a broader range of nonbanking activities, such as securities underwriting and dealing. 13 The BHC Act permits a firm that is “well managed” to engage in certain expansionary activities and to pursue investments in and acquisitions of certain nonbank financial companies without obtaining prior Board approval. The loss of “well managed” status can constrain a banking organization that is a financial holding company; can limit the banking organization from benefiting from certain expedited processing available to “well managed” firms; and can limit the scope of certain new activities permissible for the firm. 14 This can include limitations on acquisitions of, and investments in, companies engaged in certain financial activities without prior approval by the Board. 15

The LFI Framework states that a “well managed” firm has sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of conditions, including stressful ones. 16 Under the LFI Framework, a firm that receives a rating of Deficient-1 or Deficient-2 in any component rating is not considered “well managed” for purposes of the BHC Act and for certain other purposes. 17 When issuing the LFI Framework, the Board explained that a banking organization is not in satisfactory condition overall unless it is considered sound in each of the key areas of capital, liquidity, and governance and controls. A Deficient-1 component rating is issued when financial or operational deficiencies at a firm put the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at risk, but the firm's current condition is not considered to be materially threatened. Moreover, the LFI Framework establishes a presumption that the Board will impose an informal or formal enforcement action on any firm that is not “well managed.”

The Board has observed based on its implementation of the LFI Framework since 2018 that a firm that receives two component ratings of Conditionally Meets Expectations or better and a single Deficient-1 component rating can maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of conditions. Therefore, the Board is proposing to change the rating system such that firms with only one Deficient-1 component rating and two component ratings of Conditionally Meets Expectations or better are considered “well managed.” The proposal would not change the criteria for determining if a firm's component rating is Broadly Meets Expectations, Conditionally Meets Expectations, Deficient-1, or Deficient-2 under the LFI Framework. Under this proposal, the LFI Framework would calibrate a firm's “well managed” status based on the totality of the component ratings. These revisions would also result in the LFI Framework better reflecting the broad strength of the banking system and would align the application of the LFI Framework more closely with the operation of other existing supervisory ratings systems.

The Board's current supervisory approach for noninsurance depository institution holding companies assesses holding companies whose primary risks are related to the business of banking. The risks arising from insurance activities, however, are materially different from traditional banking risks. The top-tier holding company for some supervised insurance organizations is an insurance underwriting company, which is subject to supervision and regulation by the relevant state insurance regulator as well as consolidated supervision from the Board; for all supervised insurance organizations, the insurance regulators supervise and regulate the business of insurance underwriting companies. Additionally, the state insurance regulators have established Statutory Accounting Principles through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to help assess the risks of insurance companies, some of which do not produce consolidated financial statements based on generally accepted accounting principles.

Because of these differences, the Board has tailored its supervision and regulation of supervised insurance organizations. In 2022, the Board adopted the Insurance Supervisory Framework. 18 In addition, in 2023, the Board established a risk-based capital framework designed specifically for supervised insurance organizations. 19

The Insurance Supervisory Framework is modeled after the LFI Framework. The Board designed the Insurance Supervisory Framework to reflect supervisory requirements and expectations applicable to supervised insurance organizations. Further, within the Insurance Supervisory Framework, the application of supervisory guidance and the assignment of supervisory resources is based explicitly on a supervised insurance organization's complexity and individual risk profile.

In addition to other tailoring of the supervision of insurance organizations, 20 the Insurance Supervisory Framework establishes a supervisory rating system for these firms modeled after the LFI Framework. Similarly to the LFI Framework, the Insurance Supervisory Framework includes three components (Capital Management, Liquidity Management, and Governance and Controls), with each component rated based on a four-point non-numeric scale (Broadly Meets Expectations, 21 Conditionally Meets Expectations, 22 Deficient-1, 23 and Deficient-2  24 ).

Like firms subject to the LFI Framework, certain insurance organizations that lose their “well managed” status may be restricted from engaging in certain expansionary activities and pursuing investments in and acquisitions of certain nonbank financial companies without obtaining prior Board approval. 25 Under the Insurance Supervisory Framework, a supervised insurance organization must receive a rating of Conditionally Meets Expectations or better in each of the three rating components in order to be considered “well managed.” The Board previously explained that each rating is defined specifically for supervised insurance organizations with particular emphasis on the obligation that firms serve as a source of financial and managerial strength for their depository institution(s). 26 A Deficient-1 component rating is issued when financial or operational deficiencies at a firm put its prospects for remaining safe and sound, and/or the holding company's ability to serve as a source of managerial and financial strength for its depository institution(s), at significant risk. Moreover, the Insurance Supervisory Framework establishes a presumption that the Board will impose an enforcement action on any firm that is not “well managed.”

The Board has explained that the Insurance Supervisory Framework was modeled after the LFI Framework. 27 Therefore, to promote consistency with the LFI Framework, the Board is proposing to amend the Insurance Supervisory Framework such that firms with a single Deficient-1 component rating and two component ratings of Conditionally Meets Expectations or better would be considered “well managed.” The proposal would not change the criteria for determining if a firm's component rating is Broadly Meets Expectations, Conditionally Meets Expectations, Deficient-1, or Deficient-2 under the Insurance Supervisory Framework. Under this proposal, similar to changes proposed for the LFI Framework, the Insurance Supervisory Framework would calibrate a firm's “well managed” status based on the totality of the component ratings. These revisions would also result in the Insurance Supervisory Framework better reflecting the contribution of other components of the Board's regulation of supervised insurance organizations intended to ensure continued financial strength and would align the application of the LFI Framework more closely with the operation of other existing supervisory ratings systems.

In addition to this proposal, the Board plans to consider more comprehensive changes to supervisory ratings systems, including the Frameworks, that apply to Federal Reserve-supervised institutions. The Board will coordinate future proposals with other banking agencies, as appropriate.

The Board proposes to revise its LFI Framework so that a firm with at least two Broadly Meets Expectations or Conditionally Meets Expectations component ratings and no more than one Deficient-1 component rating would be considered “well managed” under the LFI Framework. A firm would not be considered “well managed” under the LFI Framework if it receives a Deficient-1 for two or more component ratings. A firm would also not be considered “well managed” under the LFI Framework if it receives a Deficient-2 for any of the component ratings.

In addition, the Board proposes to remove the presumption in the LFI Framework that firms with one or more Deficient-1 component ratings will be subject to an informal or formal enforcement action. Instead, under the proposal, the LFI Framework would state that firms with one or more Deficient-1 component ratings may be subject to a formal or informal enforcement action, depending on particular facts and circumstances. This change would better align the LFI Framework with other supervisory rating systems. 28 The proposal maintains a presumption that the Board will impose a formal enforcement action on a firm with one or more Deficient-2 component ratings. All other aspects of the LFI Framework would remain unchanged under the proposal.

Since its implementation, the Board has gained experience applying the LFI Framework and has evaluated whether the standard for identifying a “well managed” firm under the LFI Framework is properly calibrated. The LFI Framework states that a “well managed” firm has sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of conditions, including stressful ones. In using the rating system, the Board has observed that a single Deficient-1 component rating can be indicative of a discrete deficiency that does not necessarily reflect the overall condition of a firm. For example, firms may be rated Deficient-1 on governance and controls due to concerns surrounding a specific operational risk management issue, including weaknesses in areas such as operational resilience, cybersecurity, or Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance. Similarly, firms may be rated Deficient-1 for capital or liquidity due to risk-management deficiencies in a particular business line. While such deficiencies may require significant management attention to address, such a deficiency could be discrete, and the firm could have strong positions and practices overall.

A component rating of Broadly Meets Expectations signifies that a firm's practices and capabilities broadly meet supervisory expectations, and the firm possesses sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of conditions. A component rating of Conditionally Meets Expectations means that there is a material financial or operational weakness in a firm's practices or capabilities that may place the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound through a range of conditions at risk if not resolved in a timely manner during the normal course of business. These weaknesses can be resolved through measures that do not require a material change to the firm's business model or financial profile, or its governance, risk-management, or internal control structures or practices. Therefore, a firm that has an idiosyncratic deficiency that results in a rating of Deficient-1 in an individual component while maintaining a rating of Broadly Meets Expectations or Conditionally Meets Expectations in its other two components would generally have sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of conditions due to its overall robustness.

Conversely, firms with more than one Deficient-1 component rating, or one or more Deficient-2 component ratings, would not be considered “well managed,” as the Board has observed that such firms may not have sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of conditions due to a broader range of issues. The LFI Framework's presumptions regarding enforcement actions would also be revised to reflect this adjustment.

The proposed change to the definition of “well managed” firms under the LFI Framework would also better reflect the current condition of the banking system. As discussed in the Board's November 2024 Supervision and Regulation Report, the banking system remains sound and resilient overall: Most banks are well capitalized; liquidity and funding conditions are stable compared to 2023; and asset quality generally remains sound. 29 Further, large banking organizations are required to meet capital and liquidity regulatory requirements, which are calibrated to be sufficient to absorb impacts of a severe stress. 30 Under the current LFI Framework, however, over half of large financial institutions are considered not “well managed,” despite their resilience under current and stressed conditions.

In light of the experience discussed above, the current LFI Framework's approach of determining a firm's “well managed” status based solely on its lowest component rating has resulted in overweighting a single component for purposes of “well managed” determinations and has not appropriately balanced all of the components. Revising the LFI Framework to avoid such an outcome would ensure that “well managed” determinations take a more comprehensive approach and reflect the overall strength of the firm across the three components.

The proposed revision would better align the application of the LFI Framework with the operation of the Board's other existing ratings frameworks, none of which determine a firm's composite rating, which is relevant to its “well managed” status, based solely on any one of its component ratings. For example, the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (“CAMELS”) incorporates a composite score, which is relevant to a firm's “well managed” status. 31 The CAMELS composite score is an evaluation of a firm's managerial, operational, financial, and compliance performance and therefore takes into account a firm's performance in multiple component areas. 32 Similarly, the RFI/C(D) rating system includes a composite rating based on an evaluation of several component ratings, including the firm's managerial and financial condition and an assessment of future potential risk to its subsidiary depository institutions. 33 This composite score is relevant to determining a firm's “well managed” status. As such, the proposed revisions to the LFI Framework would better align the LFI Framework with the supervisory rating systems used for other banking organizations. 34

This proposal does not include other changes to the LFI Framework, including the Board's standard for evaluating the individual component ratings in the LFI Framework. The proposal does not seek to change the Board's expectation that a firm with a Deficient-1 component rating would take timely action to correct any financial or operational deficiencies, restore or maintain its safety and soundness, and comply with laws and regulations. Further, the Federal Reserve would consider specific concerns underlying a Deficient-1 component rating in evaluating any required application from a firm to engage in new or expansionary activities to the extent those concerns are relevant to the evaluation of a particular statutory factor.

The Board also proposes to make parallel changes to the “well managed” determination under the Insurance Supervisory Framework. Under the proposed amended framework, a firm with at least two Broadly Meets Expectations or Conditionally Meets Expectations component ratings and no more than one Deficient-1 component rating would be considered “well managed” under the Insurance Supervisory Framework, whereas a firm would not be considered “well managed” under the Insurance Supervisory Framework if it receives a Deficient-1 rating for two or more component ratings. A firm would also not be considered “well managed” under the Insurance Supervisory Framework if it receives a Deficient-2 rating for any of the component ratings.

Additionally, the Board proposes to make parallel changes to the Insurance Supervisory Framework to remove the presumption that firms with one or more Deficient-1 component ratings will be subject to an enforcement action. Instead, under the proposal, the Insurance Supervisory Framework would state that firms with one or more Deficient-1 component ratings may be subject to a formal or informal enforcement action, depending on particular facts and circumstances. The proposal maintains a presumption that a firm with one or more Deficient-2 component ratings would be subject to a formal enforcement action by the Board. All other aspects of the Insurance Supervisory Framework would remain unchanged under the proposal.

While the Insurance Supervisory Framework differs from the LFI Framework, in that its structure and application support use for supervised insurance organizations of all sizes and risk profiles, the Insurance Supervisory Framework is ultimately modeled after the LFI Framework. Under the Insurance Supervisory Framework, a component rating of Broadly Meets Expectations means that a firm's practices and capabilities broadly meet supervisory expectations. The firm effectively serves as a source of managerial and financial strength for its depository institution(s) and possesses sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of stressful yet plausible conditions. A component rating of Conditionally Meets Expectations signifies that the firm's practices and capabilities are generally considered sound, but there are certain supervisory issues that are sufficiently material that, if not resolved in a timely manner during the normal course of business, may put the firm's prospects for remaining safe and sound, and/or the firm's ability to serve as a source of managerial and financial strength for its depository institution(s), at risk. Therefore, a firm that has an idiosyncratic deficiency that results in a rating of Deficient-1 in an individual component while maintaining a rating of Broadly Meets Expectations or Conditionally Meets Expectations in its other two components would generally be able to operate in a safe and sound manner and have sufficient financial and operational strength to serve as a source of strength for their depository institution(s) through a range of stressful yet plausible conditions due to its overall robustness.

Conversely, firms with more than one Deficient-1 component rating, or one or more Deficient-2 component ratings, would not be considered “well managed,” as such firms generally may not be able to operate in a safe and sound manner and serve as a source of strength for their depository institution(s) through a range of stressful yet plausible conditions due to a broader range of issues.

Furthermore, following the adoption of the Insurance Supervisory Framework, the Board took steps to help ensure the financial strength of supervised insurance organizations by adopting risk-based capital requirements for these firms. 35 This risk-based capital framework, termed the Building Block Approach, adjusts and aggregates existing legal entity capital requirements to determine enterprise-wide capital requirements. These requirements help to ensure that supervised insurance organizations are appropriately capitalized and, therefore, help to prevent the economic and consumer impacts resulting from the failure of organizations engaged in banking and insurance. Currently, firms subject to the Building Block Approach have capital levels in excess of minimum requirements. 36

As discussed previously, none of the Board's other existing ratings frameworks determine a firm's composite rating, which is relevant to its “well managed” status, based solely on any one of its component ratings. Therefore, similar to the proposed changes to the LFI Framework, the proposed changes to the Insurance Supervisory Framework would better align the Insurance Supervisory Framework with the supervisory rating systems used for other banking organizations. 37

This proposal does not include other changes to the Insurance Supervisory Framework, including the Board's standard for evaluating the individual component ratings in the Insurance Supervisory Framework. The proposal does not seek to change the Board's expectation that a firm with a Deficient-1 component rating would take timely action to correct financial or operational deficiencies and to restore and maintain its safety and soundness and compliance with laws and regulations. Further, while certain firms with a single Deficient-1 component rating would no longer be statutorily limited from engaging in new activities permissible only for “well managed” firms without Board approval, the Federal Reserve would consider specific concerns underlying a Deficient-1 component rating in evaluating any application from a firm to engage in new or expansionary activities to the extent those concerns are relevant to the evaluation of a particular statutory factor.

Question 1: What are the advantages and disadvantages of revising the current Frameworks such that firms that receive a Broadly Meets Expectations or Conditionally Meets Expectations rating in the capital and liquidity components and a Deficient-2 rating only in the governance and controls component would be considered “well managed”?

Question 2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of revising the Frameworks to implement a timing requirement where a firm with a single Deficient-1 component rating would be considered not “well managed” if it has not remediated the deficiency within a certain time period?

Question 3: What are the advantages and disadvantages of revising the Frameworks such that a firm with a single Deficient-2 component rating would be considered “well managed”?

Question 4: What other changes to the Frameworks should be considered by the Board, and why?

Question 5: Should the Board consider adding a composite rating to the Frameworks to determine whether a firm is “well managed”? If so, what definitions should be used for the composite rating? For example, should the definitions be aligned with the existing generalized definitions of Broadly Meets Expectations, Conditionally Meets Expectations, Deficient-1, or Deficient-2 for each component, footnotes 7-10 and 21-24? What standard should guide the determination of a composite rating? For example, should the composite rating be based on a comprehensive assessment, or should it involve a presumption based on an average or weighted average of the different component ratings?

Question 6: What other changes to supervisory ratings systems (such as CAMELS, the RFI/C(D) rating system, ROCA ratings for U.S. branches of foreign banking organizations, and ratings for combined U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations) should be considered by the Board to reflect recent experiences in the banking system, and why? What changes to other supervisory ratings systems should be considered by the Board to align it with the proposed revisions to the Frameworks, and why?

Question 7: What other changes to supervisory ratings systems should be considered by the Board to ensure that a firm's “well managed” status is appropriately calibrated, and why?

As outlined in previous sections, the changes included in this proposal would reflect experience with the LFI Framework since its introduction in 2018, better align the application of the LFI Framework with the operation of the Board's other existing ratings frameworks, and better reflect the current condition of the banking system. The Board assessed the economic impact of the proposal on firms, on supervisory efficiency and efficacy, and on the broader economy. Specifically, the Board evaluated the potential impact on firms that would become “well managed” and the broader implications of adopting this change. It also evaluated the potential effects of the proposal's elimination of the presumption of enforcement actions in certain cases. As a result of this proposal, there would be an increase in the number of firms that are “well managed” under the LFI Framework and a potential reduction in the number of enforcement actions for these firms that have sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe-and-sound operations through a range of stressful conditions. Overall, firms that would become “well managed” may face reduced enforcement-related compliance costs and fewer regulatory impediments to pursue certain activities, including investments in, and acquisitions of, certain non-bank financial companies.

The economic analysis is structured in four parts. Section III.A provides an overview of the baseline ( i.e., the current LFI Framework), describes the current state of the assignment of LFI ratings, and discusses how these ratings can affect a firm's “well managed” status under the BHC Act. Section III.B discusses the proposal, outlines the specific changes being considered and estimates the change in the number of “well managed” firms under the proposal. Section III.C analyzes the potential benefits and costs associated with the proposed changes relative to the baseline. Section III.D analyzes the impact on supervised insurance organizations.

The current LFI Framework (discussed in detail in Section I) establishes the baseline for the economic analysis. The Board has assessed the costs and benefits of the proposal (discussed in detail in Section III.C) relative to this baseline.

Under the current LFI Framework, a firm whose holding company receives a Deficient-1 or Deficient-2 in any LFI component rating is not considered “well managed.” Furthermore, there is a presumption that firms with one or more Deficient-1 ratings will be subject to an informal or formal enforcement action.

The “well managed” status of a banking organization under certain provisions of the BHC Act depends on the ratings of the holding company and the holding company's depository institution subsidiaries, which are assigned by the relevant federal banking agency. For instance, for a bank holding company to qualify as a financial holding company and engage in certain financial activities, a bank holding company and all its depository institution subsidiaries must be “well capitalized” and “well managed.” Thus, regardless of the LFI ratings of its holding company, a U.S. banking organization may not be able to engage in certain expansionary activities if any of its subsidiary depository institutions' management or composite CAMELS rating is 3 or worse. For a foreign banking organization (“FBO”), the combined ROCA (Risk Management, Operational Controls, Compliance, Asset Quality) rating must be 3 or worse for its U.S. branches and agencies to negatively affect its “well managed” status. Additionally, an FBO that has a combined U.S. operations (“CUSO”) rating of 3 or worse is not treated as “well managed” for BHC Act purposes. Under the BHC Act, and as discussed in this section, a “well managed” firm refers to a banking organization where the holding company and all relevant subsidiaries are “well managed” and for FBOs, where their ROCA ratings and CUSO ratings are also at least satisfactory.

For the firms whose holding companies had LFI ratings in Q4 2024, Figure 1 displays their ratings between Q1 2020 to Q4 2024 and categorizes them into three categories. The first category, “Not Satisfactory DI/FBO Ratings Only,” shown in black, represents the number of firms whose depository institutions' composite or management ratings or their composite ROCA or CUSO ratings were 3 or worse and whose holding company had all three components of LFI ratings either Broadly Meets Expectations or Conditionally Meets Expectations. The second category, “Not Satisfactory LFI Ratings Only,” shown in dark grey, represents the number of firms where the holding company had one or more Deficient-1 or Deficient-2 LFI component ratings, but the subsidiary depository institutions' composite and management ratings and their composite ROCA and CUSO ratings, if applicable, were 1 or 2. The third category, “Not Satisfactory LFI and DI/FBO Ratings,” in light grey color, represents the number of firms whose subsidiary depository institutions' composite or management ratings or their composite ROCA or CUSO ratings, if applicable, were 3 or worse and whose holding company had one or more Deficient-1 or Deficient-2 LFI component ratings. As of Q4 2024, 23 out of 36 firms subject to the LFI Framework were classified as not “well managed” under the BHC Act, based on both the LFI ratings and depository institution composite and management ratings and composite ROCA and CUSO ratings, if applicable.

Figure 1 reveals an overall upward trend in the number of not “well managed” firms throughout the observed period. Ratings at the holding company and at the depository institution and FBO level usually coincide, and both contribute to a firm being not “well managed,” as demonstrated by the large area of light grey bars. Nevertheless, LFI ratings alone can result in a non-trivial number of firms being not “well managed,” as demonstrated by the dark grey bars. As of Q4 2024, five firms were not “well managed” solely due to their LFI ratings. Moreover, there were very few instances when a not “well managed” firm did not have at least one Deficient-1 LFI rating—only five instances in the whole period according to Figure 1—as demonstrated by the black bars.

Notably, the upward trend in the number of firms being considered not “well managed” has occurred over a period when the regulatory capital ratio of large financial institutions as a group remained generally stable around 13 percent. 38 Moreover, in Q4 2024 the average regulatory capital ratio was 2 percentage points higher for not “well managed” LFI firms compared to their “well managed” LFI peers. This indicates a misalignment between the results of the current LFI Framework and the financial condition of these firms. This misalignment and the associated presumption of an enforcement action in these cases may have caused the Board to allocate examination, remediation, and enforcement resources to firms that otherwise have financial strength and resilience.

As discussed in detail in Section II, under the proposal, all elements of the current LFI Framework would be maintained except for two key changes. The criteria for a firm to be “well managed” under the LFI Framework would be adjusted and the threshold for presumptive enforcement action would be modified.

First, under the proposed changes, a firm would only be considered not “well managed” under the LFI Framework if it receives a Deficient-1 rating for two or more components, or if it receives a Deficient-2 rating for any component. Nevertheless, the firm's “well managed” status under certain provisions of the BHC Act would also still be conditional on the firm's subsidiary depository institution ratings (CAMELS) and the foreign bank organization's ratings (CUSO and ROCA), if applicable.

Second, the proposal would amend the LFI Framework such that firms with one or more Deficient-1 ratings would no longer be presumed to be subject to a formal or informal enforcement action. Instead, a firm with one or more Deficient-1 component ratings may be subject to a formal or informal enforcement action, depending on particular facts and circumstances. The proposal maintains the presumption that the Board will impose a formal enforcement action on a firm with one or more Deficient-2 component ratings.

The impact of the proposal hinges on the number of firms that would become “well managed” if its holding company has a Deficient-1 rating for one component and a Broadly Meets Expectations or Conditionally Meets Expectations for the remaining two components. In addition to their direct effect on “well managed” status, LFI ratings are an input to the CUSO rating and there might be other interrelations between ratings that are hard to quantify. 40 Consequently, assessing the impact of the LFI Framework change alone and assuming that all other ratings would not be affected might underestimate the true effect, and thus provide a lower bound. Conversely, the upper bound of the proposal's effects would be obtained by computing the number of not “well managed” firms as determined by LFI ratings alone, which assumes that the depository institution or FBO ratings are not more limiting on the firm than the LFI ratings. Therefore, the Board calculated the number of not “well managed” firms for both the baseline and the proposal under the following two metrics:

The General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause 552.238-82, Modifications (Federal Supply Schedule), which was previously titled and numbered as 552.238-81 Modifications (see 84 FR 17030 dated April 23, 2019), requires Contractors who have a GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) (also known as Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)) contract to request a contract modification by submitting information to the contracting officer. At a minimum, each contract modification request covered by this clause includes an explanation for the request and supporting information. The clause has an Alternate I and Alternate II as well.

The basic clause applies to MAS contracts that are not subject to transactional data reporting and covers the following types of requests for contract modification: additional items/additional SINs, deletions, and price reductions. Alternate I is pretty much the same as the basic clause with exception to paragraph (e) being revised to reflect a MAS contractor accepting eMod. Alternate II applies to MAS contracts subject to transactional data reporting and covers the following requests for contract modification: additional items/additional SINs and deletions.

Respondents: 8,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 8,00.

Hours per Response: 3.5.

Total Burden Hours: 28,000.

A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register at 90 FR 19204 on May 6, 2025. Comments were received from one respondent; however, they did not change the estimate of the burden.

Comment on the Burden Estimate: The respondent stated that “The actual time to prepare a modification including all necessary documents is significantly higher.” However the respondent didn't provide any data to support this statement or propose an alternate estimate.

Response: The need for a modification and the information provided by the contractor via eMod is specific to their request for contract modification under the GSAR clause. The information collection burden estimate reflects an average burden concerning the types of the modifications covered by the clause. As a result, the Government believes its estimate of the burden is reasonable.

Comments on the Clause Requirements: The respondent provided information about each of the clause requirements ( e.g., provided information about paragraph (b)(i) of the clause 552.238-82.

Response: GSA appreciates this helpful information. Additionally, the information reaffirms the value and use of eMod for submitting these types of modification requests.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the GSA Regulatory Secretariat Division, by calling 202-501-4755 or emailing GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0302, “Modifications (Federal Supply Schedule)” in all correspondence.

The Grand Portage LPOE is located within the Grand Portage Reservation of the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (herein referred to as the Grand Portage Band). The existing Grand Portage LPOE is owned and managed by GSA and is operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The existing 5.7-acre Grand Portage LPOE serves as the port of entry for vehicles and pedestrians crossing the U.S.-Canada border between Grand Portage Reservation in the U.S. and Neebing, Ontario in Canada.

GSA prepared a Final EIS and Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment and Statement of Findings for the purpose of analyzing the potential environmental, cultural, and economic impacts resulting from the Proposed Action to modernize and expand the existing Grand Portage LPOE.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is for GSA to support CBP's mission by bringing the Grand Portage LPOE operations in line with current land port design standards and operational requirements of CBP while addressing existing deficiencies identified with the ongoing port operations. In order to bring the Grand Portage LPOE operations in line with CBP's design standards and operational requirements, the Proposed Action is needed to (1) address space constraints and inefficient traffic flows; (2) shorten and expedite vehicle processing time, to include improving daily commutes across the U.S.-Canada border; (3) decrease congestion and long wait times during the peak travel season; (4) allow CBP to process a higher volume of vehicles traveling to and from Canada, to include further accommodation of potential future spikes in travelers crossing the U.S.-Canada border; and (5) provide a wider single lane for large semi-trucks hauling wind turbine components from Canada.

On September 22, 2023, GSA published a Notice of Intent for the EIS in the Federal Register (88 FR 65392) and underwent a 30-day scoping period that ended on October 22, 2023. The NOA for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register (89 FR 87373) on November 1, 2024 and was available for a 45-day public comment period that ended on December 16, 2024. The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register (90 FR 19719) on May 9, 2025 and was available for a 30-day waiting period that ended on June 8, 2025.

Comments received, along with GSA's responses, during the Final SEIS waiting period are provided in an attachment to the ROD.

GSA has chosen to implement the Proposed Action as defined in the Final EIS. This decision is based on the Final EIS issued in May 2025; associated technical reports; comments from federal and state agencies, stakeholders, members of the public, tribes, and elected officials; and miscellaneous resources contained in the administrative record.

The Proposed Action is defined in the 2025 Final EIS and includes replacement of the Grand Portage LPOE with a modernized facility on an expanded footprint that encompasses approximately 10.4 acres. The Proposed Action will also include utility upgrades and construction of renewable energy technologies ( i.e. solar or geothermal), as needed. This will include construction of a 7.3-mile buried power line within an existing utility right-of-way along the western side of Highway 61 to provide three-phase power to the modernized and expanded Grand Portage LPOE. A construction phasing plan will be developed during design and implemented during demolition and construction to ensure continuity of operations of the LPOE, as well as minimize disruptions to the adjacent Grand Portage State Park and more broadly the Grand Portage Reservation lands.

The Proposed Action was selected because it best satisfies the purpose and need for the project, while resulting in the fewest substantial, adverse environmental consequences.

GSA is currently undergoing formal consultation with the Grand Portage Band Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) to follow coordination procedures as required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to determine impacts to historic properties. Mitigation measures may be determined in consultation between GSA, the THPO, and applicable consulting parties.

The project area occurs within a region unmapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for floodplains and floodways. GSA therefore assumed that the project area is located within a 1-percent-annual-chance or 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain and prepared a Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment and Statement of Findings addressing potential impacts on floodplains and wetlands, which is included in the 2025 Final EIS.

General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause 552.211-77, Packing List, and its Alternate I require a contractor to include a packing list or other suitable document for purposes of providing order and shipping information. In addition to information contractors normally include within packing lists and other suitable documents, the identification of the cardholder name, telephone number, and the term “Credit Card” is required when a Governmentwide commercial purchase card is being used as the method of payment.

Estimated Respondents: 14,342.

Estimated Responses per Respondent: 7.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 100,396.

Estimated Hours per Response: .05.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 5,020.

Total Estimated Annual Cost to the public: 146,981.

A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register at 90 FR 19205, on May 6, 2025. A single comment was received from one respondent; however, the comment did not change the estimate of the burden.

Comment on the Need and Utility of the Information Collection: The respondent expressed their support for the collection and mentioned the information collected is helpful.

Response: The respondents' support is appreciated.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the GSA Regulatory Secretariat Division, by calling 202-501-4755 or emailing GSARegSec@gsa.gov.

Federal law  1 formally recognizes the remoteness of Alaska, limited shipping options, underdeveloped port facilities, and limited oil spill response capability. Special authority to issue waivers allows for the delivery of essential goods, bulk fuel, and timely emergency assistance to areas of Alaska underserved by shippers or remote customers burdened with unique seasonal shipping conditions. 46 U.S.C. 3302(i) allows exemption from inspection requirements for voyages within Alaska. A permit may be issued for a specific voyage or for not more than one year. An issued permit will stipulate manning, along with any relevant requirements or restrictions for requested operations. The Commandant's authority to grant permits for such exemption to qualified vessels is re-delegated to Commander, Coast Guard Arctic District, in 33 CFR 1.01-50.

Permits may be granted if all the following conditions are met:

Once issued, use of the permits is subject to the following conditions:

Having considered the conditions listed above, Commander, Coast Guard Arctic District, has issued a permit to Remote Made Easy, LLC for the M/V REMOTE SUPPLIER (O.N. 1200932), a 40.1 foot long landing craft inspected under Subchapter T as a small passenger vessel, operating out of Ketchikan, AK. The permit authorizes on-going bulk fuel deliveries of up to a total of 3,000 gallons of heating oil and diesel, grades D and E, carried in non-specification double-hull integral cargo tanks, and gasoline, grade A, carried in approved portable tanks on deck. The permitted vessel may deliver bulk fuel as cargo to remote Alaskan sites not serviced by fuel barge throughout Southeast Alaska.

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year status reviews, refer to our factsheet at https://www.fws.gov/project/five-year-status-reviews.

A 5-year status review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:

A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

C. Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

D. Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA); and

E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

Any new information will be considered during the 5-year status review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.

The species in table 1 are under active 5-year status review.

To ensure that a 5-year status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What Information Do We Consider in Our Review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

If you wish to provide information for any species under review, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in table 1. You may also direct questions to those contacts. For general questions, contact the person under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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.

A list of all completed and currently active 5-year status reviews can be found at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-five-year-review.

This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on November 7, 2024 (89 FR 88302). No comments were received.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: Water information is fundamental to national and local economic well-being, protection of life and property, and the effective management of the Nation's water resources. The USGS works with partners to monitor, assess, conduct targeted research, and deliver information on a wide range of water resources and conditions, as mandated by the SECURE Water Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11, title IX, subtitle F of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009). This legislation emphasizes the need for updated, reliable data to support water resource planning and management, and specifically directs the USGS to improve assessments and forecasts of water availability, defined as “the balance between water supply and demand, as determined using a set of core components of water quality, quantity, and use.”

This generic information collection clearance will centralize administration of USGS public data collections in the topic area of water availability—encompassing both the supply and demand aspects, as well as water quality, access, and usage patterns—and allow for more systematic and timely collections that will benefit new and ongoing research programs within the Water Resources Mission Area.

The USGS plans a variety of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods under this clearance, which may include surveys, interviews, and focus groups. The exact nature of the instruments and samples is dependent on each individual project and details will be provided for each individual information collection request submitted, following OMB requirements. The bureau commits to ensuring that all collections are voluntary, minimally burdensome, noncontroversial, and only conducted with informed participant consent. All data collected will protect respondent privacy to the extent permitted by law, with a particular emphasis on protecting PII. Any information collected will not be used to influence policy decisions directly and will only be disseminated in aggregated or anonymized formats, adhering to strict guidelines for scientific integrity and privacy. Respondents will be informed of all planned data uses. Measures will be taken to minimize public burden to the greatest extent possible, including review and pre-testing of instruments to ensure clarity and relevance, and using electronic collection means whenever possible.

The research anticipated under this request will be used to advance both the scientific understanding of our socio-hydrological system and bureau priorities to integrate social science, decision science, and human-centered design more fully into Water Enterprise projects in a strategic, rigorous, and consistent way. Collection of this information supports the USGS by improving both national and regional assessments of water quantity, quality, and use; advancing scientific understanding related to the human drivers of water availability; informing product development to maximize the utility and usability of USGS water data; and framing future and ongoing research efforts within the bureau. Outputs are likely to reduce costs and improve outcomes for both the bureau and the public by ensuring our science is conducted efficiently, effectively, and is serving its intended purpose.

Title of Collection: USGS Generic Clearance for Water Availability Information Collections.

OMB Control Number: 1028-NEW.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: New.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, local and Tribal government; individuals or households; universities; businesses or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 4,650.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,500 (see chart below).

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: As needed.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $0.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authority for this action is the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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 cameras, camera systems, and accessories used therewith imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents Arashi Vision Inc. d/b/a Insta360 of Shenzhen, China, and Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360 of Irvine, California (“Arashi Vision (U.S.)”); and cease and desist orders directed to Arashi Vision (U.S.). Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).

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 July 10, 2025. 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 August 11, 2025.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1400”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. 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).

The Carrier's Report of Issuance of Policy (Form LS-570) is used by authorized insurance carriers to report the policy of insurance issued for each insured employer. This form is to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner in the compensation district indicated by the employer's address. Section 32(a) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 932(a)), requires every employer to secure the payment of such compensation with any insurance company authorized by the Secretary, to insure payment of compensation under this Act or receiving authorization from the Secretary to pay such compensation directly. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2025 (90 FR 13502).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.

Agency: DOL-OWCP.

Title of Collection: Carrier's Report of Issuance of Policy.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0004.

Affected Public: Private Sector—Businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,500.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 25 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $19.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-042-C.

Petitioner: M-Class Mining, LLC, 11351 North Thompsonville Road, Macedonia IL 62860.

Mine: MC#1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03189, located in Franklin County, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d), Permissible electric equipment.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs in or inby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) M-Class Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, and inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N.

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N.

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not in or inby the last open crosscut utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) M-Class Mining, LLC, MC#1 Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-045-C.

Petitioner: Patton Mining, LLC, 12051 9th Avenue, Hillsboro IL 62049.

Mine: Deer Run Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03182, located in Montgomery, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d), Permissible electric equipment.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs in or inby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Patton Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, and inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not in or inby the last open crosscut utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) Patton Mining, LLC, Deer Run Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, any mine operator or representative of miners may petition to use an alternative approach to comply with a mandatory safety standard. In response, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) or his or her designee may modify the application of a mandatory safety standard to that mine if the Secretary determines that: (1) An alternative method exists that will guarantee no less protection for the miners affected than that provided by the standard; or (2) the application of the standard will result in a diminution of safety to the affected miners.

MSHA bases the final decision on the petitioner's statements, any comments and information submitted by interested persons, and a field investigation of the proposed equipment, system(s), and conditions at the mine. In some instances, MSHA may grant a petition for modification on the condition that the mine operator complies with other requirements noted in the decision. In other instances, MSHA may deny, dismiss, or revoke a petition for modification. In accordance with 30 CFR 44.5, MSHA publishes every final action granting a petition for modification.

On the basis of the findings of MSHA's investigation, and as designee of the Secretary, MSHA granted or partially granted the petitions for modification below. The previous Federal Register notice (90 FR 7711) included petitions granted through December 31, 2024. This notice includes petitions granted between January 1, 2025, and June 30, 2025. The granted petitions are shown in the order that MSHA received them.

• Docket Number: M-2022-019-C.

FR Notice: 87 FR 59120 (9/29/2022).

Petitioner: Signal Peak Energy, LLC, 100 Portal Drive, Roundup, MT 59072.

Mine: Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, MSHA ID No. 24-01950, located in Musselshell County, Montana.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords).

• Docket Number: M-2023-004-C.

FR Notice: 88 FR 34546 (5/30/2023).

Petitioner: Peabody Southeast Mining LLC, 701 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Mine: Shoal Creek Mine, MSHA ID No. 01-02901, located in Tuscaloosa and Walker Counties, Alabama.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2023-005-C.

FR Notice: 88 FR 34544 (5/30/2023).

Petitioner: Peabody Southeast Mining LLC, 701 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Mine: Shoal Creek Mine, MSHA ID No. 01-02901, located in Tuscaloosa and Walker Counties, Alabama.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2023-006-C.

FR Notice: 88 FR 34545 (5/30/2023).

Petitioner: Peabody Southeast Mining LLC, 701 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Mine: Shoal Creek Mine, MSHA ID No. 01-02901, located in Tuscaloosa and Walker Counties, Alabama.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2023-007-C.

FR Notice: 88 FR 25707 (4/27/2023).

Petitioner: Marfork Coal Company, LLC, P.O. Box 457, Whitesville, WV 25209.

Mine: Glen Alum Tunnel Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09375, located in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700 (Oil and gas wells).

• Docket Number: M-2023-012-C.

FR Notice: 88 FR 71380 (10/16/2023).

Petitioner: Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC, 16243 Highway 216, Brookwood, AL 35444.

Mine: No. 4 Mine, MSHA ID No. 01-01247, located in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. No. 7 Mine, MSHA ID No. 01-01401, located in Jefferson County, Alabama.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.900 (Low- and medium-voltage circuits serving three-phase alternating current equipment; circuit breakers).

• Docket Number: M-2023-027-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 10103 (2/13/2024).

Petitioner: Mountain Coal Company, LLC, 5174 Highway 133, Somerset, CO 81434.

Mine: West Elk Mine, MSHA ID No. 05-03672, located in Gunnison County, Colorado.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords).

• Docket Number: M-2024-001-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 20251 (3/21/2024).

Petitioner: River View Coal, LLC, 835 St. Route 1179, Waverly, KY 42462.

Mine: Henderson County Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-02709, located in Union County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords).

• Docket Number: M-2024-003-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 28812 (4/19/2024).

Petitioner: Elk Run Coal Company, LLC, P.O. Box 457, Whitesville, WV 25209.

Mine: Checkmate Powellton Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09640, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700 (Oil and gas wells).

• Docket Number: M-2024-004-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 28808 (4/19/2024).

Petitioner: Rosebud Mining Company, 301 Market Street, Kittanning, PA 16201.

Mine: Fulton Run Mine, MSHA ID No. 36-10410, located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700 (Oil and gas wells).

• Docket Number: M-2024-005-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 58769 (7/19/2024).

Petitioner: Banner Blue Coal Company, 1073 Riverview Street, Grundy, VA 24614.

Mines: Paw Paw 2 South, MSHA ID No. 44-07401, located in Buchanan County, Virginia; Paw Paw 2, MSHA ID No. 15-19842, located in Pike County, Kentucky; and Shop Branch, MSHA ID No. 15-19866, located in Pike County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-007-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 62796 (8/1/2024).

Petitioner: Tunnel Ridge, LLC, 184 Schoolhouse Lane, Valley Grove, WV 26060.

Mine: Tunnel Ridge Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08864, located in Ohio County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700 (Oil and gas wells).

• Docket Number: M-2024-008-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 62800 (8/1/2024).

Petitioner: Fossil Rock Resources, LLC, 5125 N Cottonwood Road, Orangeville, UT 84537.

Mine: Fossil Rock Mine, MSHA ID No. 42-01211, located in Emery County, Utah.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1909(b)(6) (Service brakes on self-propelled nonpermissible diesel-powered equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-002-M.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80958 (10/4/2024).

Petitioner: Northern Star (Pogo), LLC, 3204 International Street, Fairbanks, AK 99702.

Mine: Pogo Mine, MSHA ID No. 50-01642, located in Southeast Fairbanks, Alaska.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.11052 (Refuge areas).

• Docket Number: M-2024-012-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81567 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 4619 Bolt Road, Bolt, WV 25817.

Mine: Eagle #3 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09427, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700 (Oil and gas wells).

• Docket Number: M-2024-016-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80940 (10/4/2024).

Petitioner: Warrior Coal, LLC, 57 J. E. Ellis Road, Madisonville, KY 42431.

Mine: Cardinal Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-17216, located in Hopkins County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-017-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80955 (10/4/2024).

Petitioner: Warrior Coal, LLC, 57 J. E. Ellis Road, Madisonville, KY 42431.

Mine: Cardinal Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-17216, located in Hopkins County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-034-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90067 (11/14/2024).

Petitioner: Buchanan Minerals, LLC, PO Drawer L, Oakwood VA 24631.

Mine: Buchanan No.1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 44-04856, located in Buchanan County, Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-035-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90056 (11/14/2024).

Petitioner: Buchanan Minerals, LLC, P.O. Drawer L, Oakwood VA 24631.

Mine: Buchanan No.1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 44-04856, located in Buchanan County, Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-036-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90062 (11/14/2024).

Petitioner: Buchanan Minerals, LLC, P.O. Drawer L, Oakwood VA 24631.

Mine: Buchanan No.1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 44-04856, located in Buchanan County, Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-018-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80950 (10/4/2024).

Petitioner: Hamilton County Coal, LLC, 18033 County Road 500 E, Dahlgren, IL 62828.

Mine: Mine No. 1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03203, located in Hamilton County, Illinois.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-019-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80957 (10/4/2024).

Petitioner: Hamilton County Coal, LLC, 18033 County Road 500 E, Dahlgren, IL 62828.

Mine: Mine No. 1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03203, located in Hamilton County, Illinois.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-020-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80936 (11/4/2024).

Petitioner: Hamilton County Coal, LLC, 18033 County Road 500 E, Dahlgren, IL 62828.

Mine: Mine No. 1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03203, located in Hamilton County, Illinois.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-014-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80941 (10/4/2024).

Petitioner: Gibson County Coal, LLC, 3455 S 700 W, Owensville, IN 47665.

Mine: Gibson South Mine, MSHA ID No. 12-02388, located in Gibson County, Indiana.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-015-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 80953 (10/4/2024).

Petitioner: Gibson County Coal, LLC, 3455 S 700 W, Owensville, IN 47665.

Mine: Gibson South Mine, MSHA ID No. 12-02388, located in Gibson County, Indiana.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-021-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81572 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: River View Coal, LLC, 835 State Route 1179, Waverly, KY 42462.

Mine: River View Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-19374, located in Union County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-022-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81559 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: River View Coal, LLC, 835 State Route 1179, Waverly, KY 42462.

Mine: River View Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-19374, located in Union County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-023-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81560 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: River View Coal, LLC, 835 State Route 1179, Waverly, KY 42462.

Mine: Henderson County Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-02709, located in Union County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-024-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81553 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: River View Coal, LLC, 835 State Route 1179, Waverly, KY 42462.

Mine: Henderson County Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-02709, located in Union County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-053-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90767 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Marfork Coal Company, LLC, P.O. Box 457, Whitesville, WV 25209.

Mine: Black Eagle Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09550, located in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.312(c) (Main mine fan examinations and records).

• Docket Number: M-2024-037-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90060 (11/14/2024).

Petitioner: ACI Tygart Valley, 1200 Tygart Drive, Grafton, WV 26354.

Mine: Leer Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09192, located in Taylor County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-041-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90754 (11/8/2024).

Petitioner: Kingston Mining, Inc., 300 Running Right Way, Julian, WV 25529.

Mine: Kingston No. 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08932, located in Fayette County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-042-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90749 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Kingston Mining, Inc., 300 Running Right Way, Julian, WV 25529.

Mine: Kingston No. 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08932, located in Fayette County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-043-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90747 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Kingston Mining, Inc., 300 Running Right Way, Julian, WV 25529.

Mine: Kingston No. 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08932, located in Fayette County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-028-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81562 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: Excel Mining, 4126 State Highway 194 W, Pikeville, KY 41501.

Mine: Excel #5 Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-19838, located in Pike County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-029-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81555 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: Excel Mining, 4126 State Highway 194 W, Pikeville, KY 41501.

Mine: Excel #5 Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-19838, located in Pike County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-030-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81557 (11/8/2024).

Petitioner: Excel Mining, 4126 State Highway 194 W, Pikeville, KY 41501.

Mine: Excel #5 Mine, MSHA ID No. 15-19838, located in Pike County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-031-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81574 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: Mettiki Coal WV, LLC, 293 Table Rock Road, Oakland, MD 21550.

Mine: Mountain View Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09028, located in Davis, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-032-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81564 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: Mettiki Coal WV, LLC, 293 Table Rock Road, Oakland, MD 21550.

Mine: Mountain View Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09028, located in Davis, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-033-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 81566 (10/8/2024).

Petitioner: Mettiki Coal WV, LLC, 293 Table Rock Road, Oakland, MD 21550.

Mine: Mountain View Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09028, located in Davis, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-038-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90070 (11/14/2024).

Petitioner: Tunnel Ridge, LLC, 184 Schoolhouse Lane Valley Grove, WV 26060.

Mine: Tunnel Ridge Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08864, located in Ohio County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-039-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90065 (11/14/2024).

Petitioner: Tunnel Ridge, LLC, 184 Schoolhouse Lane Valley Grove, WV 26060.

Mine: Tunnel Ridge Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08864, located in Ohio County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-040-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90058 (11/14/2024).

Petitioner: Tunnel Ridge, LLC, 184 Schoolhouse Lane, Valley Grove, WV 26060.

Mine: Tunnel Ridge Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08864, located in Ohio County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-003-M.

FR Notice: 89 FR 96692 (12/5/2024).

Petitioner: South32 Hermosa, Inc., 749 Harshaw Rd., Patagonia, AZ 85624.

Mine: Hermosa Mine, MSHA ID No. 02-03398, located in Santa Cruz County, Arizona.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.11052(d) (Refuge areas).

• Docket Number: M-2024-044-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90766 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Panther Creek Mining, LLC, PO Box 99 Dawes, WV 25054.

Mine: Speed Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-05437, located in Kanawha County, West Virginia, and Winchester 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09615, located in Kanawha County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-045-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90761 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Panther Creek Mining, LLC, PO Box 99 Dawes, WV 25054.

Mine: Speed Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-05437, located in Kanawha County, West Virginia, and Winchester 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09615, located in Kanawha County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-046-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90745 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Panther Creek Mining, LLC, PO Box 99 Dawes, WV 25054.

Mine: Speed Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-05437, located in Kanawha County, West Virginia, and Winchester 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09615, located in Kanawha County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-047-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90751 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Greenbrier Minerals, LLC, 119 Rich Creek Road, Lyburn, WV 25632.

Mines: Powellton #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09217, located in Logan County, West Virginia; Lower War Eagle, MSHA ID No. 46-09319, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia; Muddy Bridge, Mine ID No. 46-09514, located in Logan County, West Virginia; Eagle No. 1 Mine, Mine ID No. 46-09563, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-048-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90756 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Greenbrier Minerals, LLC, 119 Rich Creek Road, Lyburn, WV 25632.

Mines: Powellton #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09217, located in Logan County, West Virginia; Lower War Eagle, MSHA ID No. 46-09319, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia; Muddy Bridge, Mine ID No. 46-09514, located in Logan County, West Virginia; Eagle No. 1 Mine, Mine ID No. 46-09563, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-049-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90742 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Greenbrier Minerals, LLC, 119 Rich Creek Road, Lyburn, WV 25632.

Mines: Powellton #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09217, located in Logan County, West Virginia; Lower War Eagle, MSHA ID No. 46-09319, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia; Muddy Bridge, Mine ID No. 46-09514, located in Logan County, West Virginia; Eagle No. 1 Mine, Mine ID No. 46-09563, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-050-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90762 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Panther Creek Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Maple Eagle #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-04236, located in Fayette County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-051-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90764 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Panther Creek Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Maple Eagle #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-04236, located in Fayette County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-052-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 90759 (11/18/2024).

Petitioner: Panther Creek Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Maple Eagle #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-04236, located in Fayette County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-066-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 96681 (12/5/2024).

Petitioner: Kanawha Eagle Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 189, Comfort, WV 25049.

Mine: Winchester Peerless Rachel Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09258, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-067-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 96690 (12/5/2024).

Petitioner: Kanawha Eagle Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 189, Comfort, WV 25049.

Mine: Winchester Peerless Rachel Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09258, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-068-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 96686 (12/5/2024).

Petitioner: Kanawha Eagle Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 189, Comfort, WV 25049.

Mine: Winchester Peerless Rachel Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09258, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-069-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 96683 (12/5/2024).

Petitioner: Kanawha Eagle Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 189, Comfort, WV 25049.

Mine: North Eagle Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08759, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-070-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 96688 (12/5/2024).

Petitioner: Kanawha Eagle Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 189, Comfort, WV 25049.

Mine: North Eagle Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08759, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-071-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 96685 (12/5/2024).

Petitioner: Kanawha Eagle Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 189, Comfort, WV 25049.

Mine: North Eagle Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-08759, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-076-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 99287 (12/10/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Eagle #3 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09427, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-077-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 99911 (12/11/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Eagle #3 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09427, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-078-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 99909 (12/11/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Eagle #3 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09427, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-079-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 100547 (12/12/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY, 40507.

Mine: Flying Eagle Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09471, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-080-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 100545 (12/12/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Flying Eagle Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09471, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-081-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 100543 (12/12/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Flying Eagle Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09471, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-082-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 101631 (12/16/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Coal Branch No. 1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09588, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-083-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 101632 (12/16/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Coal Branch No. 1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09588, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-084-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 101634 (12/16/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Coal Branch No. 1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09588, located in Boone County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-085-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 101638 (12/16/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Coal Branch No. 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09663, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2024-086-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 101636 (12/16/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Coal Branch No. 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09663, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-087-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 101639 (12/16/2024).

Petitioner: Rockwell Mining, LLC, 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Coal Branch No. 2 Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09663, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2024-089-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 106596 (12/30/2024).

Petitioner: Mingo Logan Coal, LLC, Sharples, WV 25183.

Mine: Mountaineer II Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09029, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2024-072-C.

FR Notice: 89 FR 106598 (12/30/2024).

Petitioner: Harrison County Coal Resources, Inc., 464 North Portal Rd., Wallace, WV 26448.

Mine: Harrison County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01318, located in Marion County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance; Specified in 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords).

• Docket Number: M-2025-001-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9921 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Mine No. 77, MSHA ID No. 15-09636, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-002-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9926 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Mine No.77, MSHA ID No. 15-09636, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2025-003-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9930 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Mine No.77, MSHA ID No. 15-09636, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2025-004-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9918 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Calvary No. 81, MSHA ID No. 15-12753, located in Leslie County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-005-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9928 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Calvary No. 81, MSHA ID No. 15-12753, located in Leslie County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2025-006-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9916 (2/19/2025)

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Calvary No. 81, MSHA ID No. 15-12753, located in Leslie County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2025-007-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9925 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Bear Branch 2, MSHA ID No. 15-18565, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-008-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9923 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Bear Branch 2, MSHA ID No. 15-18565, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2025-009-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 9920 (2/19/2025).

Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Co., 250 West Main Street, Suite 2000, Lexington, KY 40507.

Mine: Bear Branch 2, MSHA ID No. 15-18565, located in Perry County, Kentucky.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2025-002-M.

FR Notice: 90 FR 11076 (3/3/2025).

Petitioner: Grefco Minerals, LLC, 36904 Summit Lake Road, Burney, CA 96013.

Mine: Grefco Mine & Mill, MSHA ID No. 26-00125, located in Nye County, Nevada.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 56.20001 (Intoxicating beverages and narcotics).

• Docket Number: M-2025-019-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 13214 (3/20/2025).

Petitioner: ICG Beckley, LLC, P.O. Box 49, Eccles, WV 25836.

Mine: Beckley Pocahontas Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-05252, located in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-020-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 13208 (3/20/2025).

Petitioner: ICG Beckley, LLC, P.O. Box 49, Eccles, WV 25836.

Mine: Beckley Pocahontas Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-05252, located in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements).

• Docket Number: M-2025-021-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 13203 (3/20/2025).

Petitioner: ICG Beckley, LLC, P.O. Box 49, Eccles, WV 25836.

Mine: Beckley Pocahontas Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-05252, located in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2025-022-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 13213 (3/20/2025).

Petitioner: Sunrise Coal, LLC, 1183 East Canvasback Drive, Terre Haute, IN 47802.

Mine: Oaktown Fuels Mine No. 1, MSHA ID No. 12-02394, located in Knox County, Indiana; Oaktown Fuels Mine No. 2, MSHA ID No. 12-02418, located in Knox County, Indiana.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-023-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 13205 (3/20/2025).

Petitioner: ACI Tygart Valley, 1200 Tygart Drive, Grafton, WV 26354.

Mine: Leer Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09192, located in Taylor County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-024-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 13210 (3/20/2025).

Petitioner: ACI Tygart Valley, 1200 Tygart Drive, Grafton, WV 26354.

Mine: Leer Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09192, located in Taylor County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2025-033-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 16565 (4/18/2025).

Petitioner: ACNR Holdings, Inc., 46226 National Road, St. Clairsville, OH 43950.

Mines: Ohio County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01436, located in Marshall County, West Virginia; Marshall County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01437, located in Marshall County, West Virginia; Marion County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01433, located in Marion County, West Virginia; Harrison County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01318, located in Wetzel County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-034-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 16576 (4/18/2025).

Petitioner: ACNR Holdings, Inc., 46226 National Road, St. Clairsville, OH 43950.

Mines: Ohio County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01436, located in Marshall County, West Virginia; Marshall County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01437, located in Marshall County, West Virginia; Marion County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01433, located in Marion County, West Virginia; Harrison County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01318, located in Wetzel County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-035-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 16566 (4/18/2025).

Petitioner: ACNR Holdings, Inc., 46226 National Road, St. Clairsville, OH 43950.

Mines: Ohio County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01436, located in Marshall County, West Virginia; Marshall County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01437, located in Marshall County, West Virginia; Marion County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01433, located in Marion County, West Virginia; Harrison County Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-01318, located in Wetzel County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

• Docket Number: M-2025-028-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 16573 (4/18/2025).

Petitioner: Mingo Logan Coal, LLC, P.O. Box E, Sharples, WV 25183.

Mine: Mountaineer II Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09029, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

• Docket Number: M-2025-029-C.

FR Notice: 90 FR 16563 (4/18/2025).

Petitioner: Mingo Logan Coal, LLC, P.O. Box E, Sharples, WV 25183.

Mine: Mountaineer II Mine, MSHA ID No. 46-09029, located in Logan County, West Virginia.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-041-C.

Petitioner: Mach Mining, LLC, 16468 Liberty School Road, Marion IL 62959.

Mine: Mach #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03141, located in Williamson County, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a), Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Mach Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air not within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) Mach Mining, LLC, Mach #1 Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-036-C.

Petitioner: Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, HC35, Box 380, Helper, UT 84526.

Mine: Skyline Mine #3, MSHA ID No. 42-01566, located in Carbon County, Utah.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d), Permissible electric equipment.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) to permit an alternate method of compliance for respiratory protection. Specifically, the petitioner proposes to use the non-MSHA approved Drager X-plore 8000 battery-powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs), taken into or used inby the last crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs are ergonomically designed for greater movement in tight spaces and are easy to use and maintain.

(b) The Drager X-plore 8000 provides a constant flow of filtered air which helps reduce miners' exposure to respirable dust, thus reducing their health risks.

(c) The interchangeable components of the Drager X-plore 8000 will help the petitioner customize the system to help meet their specific needs.

(d) The Drager X-plore 8000 has audible and visual alarms, has a multi-speed blower, and uses a battery that offers a long run time and charges quickly.

(e) The Drager X-plore 8000 is intrinsically safe and is certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11:13 standard to be used in hazardous locations.

(f) There are no other MSHA-approved permissible units.

(g) The petitioner is proposing to use the Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs in conjunction with the 3M Versa Flo units that have already been approved for use on the Longwall Face.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The batteries for the PAPRs will be charged outby the last open crosscut when not in operation.

(b) Batteries will be charged using the Drager standard battery Charger for the X-plore 8000.

(c) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will only use the Drager X-plore 8700 battery.

(d) Miners who use the Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will be trained in the proper use and care of the units in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

(e) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will be checked for physical damage and the integrity of the case.

(f) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, the procedures in 30 CFR 75.323 will be followed.

The miners at Skyline Mine #3 do not have a representative of miners. A copy of the petition is posted on the mine bulletin board.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-037-C.

Petitioner: Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, HC35, Box 380, Helper, UT 84526.

Mine: Skyline Mine #3, MSHA ID No. 42-01566, located in Carbon County, Utah.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a), Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) to permit an alternate method of compliance for respiratory protection. Specifically, the petitioner proposes to use the non-MSHA approved Drager X-plore 8000 battery-powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs), used in return air outby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs are ergonomically designed for greater movement in tight spaces and are easy to use and maintain.

(b) The Drager X-plore 8000 provides a constant flow of filtered air which helps reduce miners' exposure to respirable dust, thus reducing their health risks.

(c) The interchangeable components of the Drager X-plore 8000 will help the petitioner customize the system to help meet their specific needs.

(d) The Drager X-plore 8000 has audible and visual alarms, has a multi-speed blower, and uses a battery that offers a long run time and charges quickly.

(e) The Drager X-plore 8000 is intrinsically safe and is certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11:13 standard to be used in hazardous locations.

(f) There are no other MSHA-approved permissible units.

(g) The petitioner is proposing to use the Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs in conjunction with the 3M Versa Flo units that have already been approved for use on the Longwall Face.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The batteries for the PAPRs will be charged outby the last open crosscut when not in operation.

(b) Batteries will be charged using the Drager standard battery Charger for the X-plore 8000.

(c) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will only use the Drager X-plore 8700 battery.

(d) Miners who use the Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will be trained in the proper use and care of the units in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

(e) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will be checked for physical damage and the integrity of the case.

(f) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, the procedures in 30 CFR 75.323 will be followed.

The miners at Skyline Mine #3 do not have a representative of miners. A copy of the petition is posted on the mine bulletin board.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-047-C.

Petitioner: Patton Mining, LLC, 12051 9th Avenue, Hillsboro IL 62049.

Mine: Deer Run Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03182, located in Montgomery, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a), Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Patton Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air not within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, and inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's rbattery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N.

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N.

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) Patton Mining, LLC, Deer Run Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-040-C.

Petitioner: Mach Mining, LLC, 16468 Liberty School Road, Marion IL 62959.

Mine: Mach #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03141, located in Williamson County, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a), Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs in return air outby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Mach Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not in return air outby the last open crosscut utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) Mach Mining, LLC, Mach #1 Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-039-C.

Petitioner: Mach Mining, LLC, 16468 Liberty School Road, Marion IL 62959.

Mine: Mach #1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03141, located in Williamson County, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d), Permissible electric equipment.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs in or inby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Mach Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N.

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N.

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not in or inby the last open crosscut utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) Mach Mining, LLC, Mach #1 Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-046-C.

Petitioner: Patton Mining, LLC, 12051 9th Avenue, Hillsboro IL 62049.

Mine: Deer Run Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03182, located in Montgomery, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a), Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs in return air outby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Patton Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 is to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, and inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's recommended battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N.

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N.

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not in return air outby the last open crosscut utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) Patton Mining, LLC, Deer Run Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-043-C.

Petitioner: M-Class Mining, LLC, 11351 North Thompsonville Road, Macedonia IL 62860.

Mine: MC#1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03189, located in Franklin County, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.507-1(a), Electric equipment other than power-connection points; outby the last open crosscut; return air; permissibility requirements.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs in return air outby the last open crosscut.

The petitioner states that:

(a) M-Class Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, and inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N.

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N.

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not in return air outby the last open crosscut utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) M-Class Mining, LLC, MC#1 Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-038-C.

Petitioner: Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, HC35, Box 380, Helper, UT 84526.

Mine: Skyline Mine #3, MSHA ID No. 42-01566, located in Carbon County, Utah.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a), Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a) to permit an alternate method of compliance for respiratory protection. Specifically, the petitioner proposes to use the non-MSHA approved Drager X-plore 8000 battery-powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs), located within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

The petitioner states that:

(a) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs are ergonomically designed for greater movement in tight spaces and are easy to use and maintain.

(b) The Drager X-plore 8000 provides a constant flow of filtered air which helps reduce miners' exposure to respirable dust, thus reducing their health risks.

(c) The interchangeable components of the Drager X-plore 8000 will help the petitioner customize the system to help meet their specific needs.

(d) The Drager X-plore 8000 has audible and visual alarms, has a multi-speed blower, and uses a battery that offers a long run time and charges quickly.

(e) The Drager X-plore 8000 is intrinsically safe and is certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11:13 standard to be used in hazardous locations.

(f) There are no other MSHA-approved permissible units.

(g) The petitioner is proposing to use the Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs in conjunction with the 3M Versa Flo units that have already been approved for use on the Longwall Face.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The batteries for the PAPRs will be charged outby the last open crosscut when not in operation.

(b) Batteries will be charged using the Drager standard battery Charger for the X-plore 8000.

(c) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will only use the Drager X-plore 8700 battery.

(d) Miners who use the Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will be trained in the proper use and care of the units in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

(e) The Drager X-plore 8000 PAPRs will be checked for physical damage and the integrity of the case.

(f) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, the procedures in 30 CFR 75.323 will be followed.

The miners at Skyline Mine #3 do not have a representative of miners. A copy of the petition is posted on the mine bulletin board.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-048-C.

Petitioner: Patton Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 457, Hillsboro, Illinois 62049.

Mine: Deer Run Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03182, located in Montgomery County, Illinois.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i), Portable (trailing) cables and cords.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i) to increase the maximum length of trailing cables supplying power to permissible equipment used in continuous mining sections.

The petitioner states that:

(a) Increasing the length of the cables supplying power to the shuttle cars will reduce the frequency that a section power center must be advanced and lessen handling of the cable.

(b) The modification will decrease the opportunities for cable damage and minimize exposure to the miners handling the cable.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The petition shall apply only to trailing cables supplying three-phase, 995-volt power to shuttle cars.

(b) The maximum length of the 995-volt shuttle car trailing cables shall be 950 feet.

(c) The 995-volt shuttle car trailing cables shall not be smaller than #2 A WG.

(d) A Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories 75 lA (“SEL-75 lA”) overcurrent protection relay shall be used and a designated official of Patton Mining, LLC shall manage the password protected settings.

(e) All circuit breakers used to protect #2 AWG trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in length shall have instantaneous trip units set to trip at 800 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers shall be password protected, and these circuit breakers shall have permanent, legible labels. Each label shall identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting #2 AWG cables. This label shall be maintained legible.

(f) Replacement instantaneous trip units, used to protect #2 AWG trailing cables, shall be set to trip at 800 amperes and this setting shall be password protected.

(g) During each production day, persons designated by the operator shall visually examine the trailing cables to ensure the cables are in safe operating condition.

(h) Any trailing cable that is not in safe operating condition shall be removed from service immediately and repaired or replaced.

(i) Each splice or repair in the trailing cables shall be made in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the splice or repair materials. The splice or repair shall comply with 30 CFR 75.603 and 75.604.

(j) Permanent warning labels shall be installed and maintained on the cover(s) of the power center identifying the location of each password protected short-circuit protection device. These labels shall warn miners not to change or alter these short-circuit settings.

(k) The alternative method shall not be implemented until miners designated to examine the integrity of the settings, verify the short-circuit settings, and examine trailing cables for defects and damage have received the training specified herein.

(l) Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order is granted by MSHA, the petitioner shall submit proposed revisions for their approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager for the area in which the mine is located. The training shall include the following elements:

(1) Training in mining methods and operating procedures that will protect the trailing cables against damage;

(2) Training in the proper procedures for examining the trailing cables to ensure the cables are in safe operating condition;

(3) Training in hazards of setting the instantaneous circuit breakers too high to adequately protect the trailing cables; and

(4) Training in how to verify the circuit interrupting device(s) protecting the trailing cable(s) is properly set and maintained.

There is no representative of miners at the Deer Run Mine. A copy of the petition for modification was posted on the mine bulletin board on May 12, 2025.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners under the mandatory standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2025-044-C.

Petitioner: M-Class Mining, LLC, 11351 North Thompsonville Road, Macedonia IL 62860.

Mine: MC#1 Mine, MSHA ID No. 11-03189, located in Franklin County, IL.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a), Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility.

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a) to allow the use of intrinsically safe Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) as an alternative method for respirable dust protection. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting to utilize the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

The petitioner states that:

(a) M-Class Mining, LLC, would like to provide PAPRs so that its miners have a better option of protection from the harmful dust that causes lung diseases.

(b) The 3M PAPR Airstream helmet was MSHA approved to provide miners respirable dust protection, but 3M has discontinued the Airstream helmet and there are no other MSHA approved PAPRs available.

(c) The CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are both certified by UL under the ANSI/UL 60079-11 standard to be used in hazardous locations because they meet the intrinsic safety protection level and are acceptable in other jurisdictions to use in mines with the potential for methane accumulation.

(d) The alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:

(a) The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person according to 30 CFR 75.512-2 and examination results shall be recorded weekly and may be expunged after one year.

(b) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.

(c) A qualified person under 30 CFR 75.151 shall monitor for methane as is required by the standard in the affected area of the mine.

(d) The CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo have been determined to be intrinsically safe under IECEx and other countries' standards which provides the same level of protection. Neither manufacturer is pursuing MSHA approval.

(e) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall only use the 3M TR-830 battery pack or manufacturer equivalent.

(f) Before each shift when the CleanSpace EX or the 3M Versaflo TR-800 are to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air not within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.

(g) The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall include:

(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;

(2) Remove the battery and examine for corrosion;

(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;

(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;

(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened; and

(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swollen.

(h) Miners shall receive training regarding how to safely use, care for, and inspect the PAPR, and the Proposed Decision and Order granted by MSHA before using equipment in the relevant part of the mine. A record of the training shall be kept and available upon request.

(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:

(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall not be disassembled or modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.

(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only on the surface of the mine and only using a manufacturer's battery charger shown below or manufacturer equivalent.

(i) 3M Battery Charger TR-641N

(ii) 3M 4-Station battery charger TR-644N

(3) The CleanSpace EX shall be charged on the surface or underground in intake air and not within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces utilizing the following chargers.

(i) CleanSpace PAF-0066, PAF-1100 or manufacturer equivalent.

(4) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are not exceeded.

(5) The 3M Versaflo TR-830 battery pack shall not be used at the end of its life cycle ( i.e., when there is a performance decrease of greater than 20 percent in battery-operated equipment). The battery pack shall be disposed of properly.

(j) M-Class Mining, LLC, MC#1 Mine does not have a representative of miners and the petition has been posted at the mine on May 21, 2025.

In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted manufacturer specification sheets for the CleanSpace EX and the Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs.

The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.

The NRC has received, by letter dated January 20, 2025, an application from Framatome, Inc., to amend materials license SNM-1227 at the Framatome Fuel Fabrication Facility, located in Richland, Washington. The Framatome Fuel Fabrication Facility is authorized to possess, use, and store SNM, source material, and byproduct material. This amendment request proposes an increase of the enrichment limit in the SNM-1227 license from 5.0 weight percent U-235 to less than 6.5 weight percent U-235.

As documented in an administrative completeness review, dated May 2, 2025, the NRC found the supplemental application acceptable for a technical review. During the technical review, the NRC will review the supplemental application in areas that include, but are not limited to, radiation protection, chemical safety, fire safety, security, environmental protection, financial assessment/qualification, emergency management, human factors, integrated safety analysis, management measures, quality assurance, criticality safety, natural phenomena, and material control/accountability. Prior to reaching a decision on the request to amend SNM-1227, the NRC will conduct a review and make a determination in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).

A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 ( https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML20340A053 ) and on the NRC public website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html#participate.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. After a digital ID certificate is obtained and a docket created, the participant must submit adjudicatory documents in Portable Document Format. Guidance on submissions is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed to obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as previously described, click “cancel” when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing docket where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants should not include copyrighted materials in their submission.

A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive unclassified information (including SUNSI and SGI). Requirements for access to SGI and SUNSI is regulated by 10 CFR part 2, additional requirements for SGI is in 10 CFR part 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI or SUNSI regulations.

B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered, absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.

C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI, SGI, or both to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Licensing, Hearings, and Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email addresses for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov, respectively. 1 The request must include the following information:

(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice;

(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1);

(3) If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention; and

(4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain the following information:

(a) A statement that explains each individual's “need to know” the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent with the definition of “need to know” as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the statement must explain:

(i) Specifically, why the requestor believes that the information is necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a specific contention in this proceeding;  2 and

(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.

(b) A completed Form SF-85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” for each individual who would have access to SGI. The completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the National Background Investigation Services e-App system, a secure website that is owned and operated by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-3710. 3

(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form FD-258 will be provided in the background check request package supplied by the Office of Administration for each individual for whom a background check is being requested. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for an FBI identification and criminal history records check.

(d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $369.00  4 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the request for access has been submitted.

(e) If the requestor or any individual(s) who will have access to SGI believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration, Personnel Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need to know, are still applicable.

Note: Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) of this Order must be sent to the following address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Administration, ATTN: Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop: TWFN -07D04M, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

These documents and materials should not be included with the request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required.

D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.

E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4), as applicable, the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:

(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and

(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.

F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(2), the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI. 5

G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that the requestor has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2), the Office of Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the requestor in writing. The notification will provide the names of approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will be provided. Those conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order  6 by each individual who will be granted access to SGI.

H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's information protection system is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI protection requirements.

I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI or SGI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that later deadline.

J. Review of Denials of Access.

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.

(2) Before the Office of Administration makes a final adverse determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the proposed recipient(s) for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iii), must provide the proposed recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness and reliability determination, including those required to be provided under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an opportunity to correct or explain the record.

(3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

(4) The requestor may challenge the Office of Administration's final adverse determination with respect to trustworthiness and reliability for access to SGI by filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iv).

(5) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.

K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311. 7

L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI or SGI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

It is so ordered.

The text of the exemptions is attached.