81 FR 17758 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Approval of a New Information Collection
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 61 (March 30, 2016)
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 61 (March 30, 2016)
| Page Range | 17758-17760 | |
| FR Document | 2016-07169 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 17758-17760] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-07169] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2016-0010] Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Approval of a New Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of request for approval of a new information collection. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new information collection. We published a Federal Register Notice with a 60-day public comment period on this information collection on June 23, 2015. We are required to publish this notice in the Federal Register by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by April 29, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and [[Page 17759]] (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket No. FHWA-2016-0010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Nesbitt ([email protected]), 202-366-1179, Office of Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: National Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Implementation Review, TPM Toolbox, and TPM State-of- Practice Questionnaires. Type of request: New information collection requirement. Background: Moving The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act and the subsequent Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) transformed the Federal-aid highway program by establishing new requirements for transportation performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Transportation performance management increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program and provides for a framework to support improved investment decision making through a focus on performance outcomes for key national transportation goals. State transportation agencies (STAs) will be expected to use the information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to make better informed transportation planning and programming decisions. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid program will allow FHWA to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably assess the impacts of Federal funding investments. Under the ``National Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Implementation Review Survey, TPM State-of-Practice Questionnaires, and TPM Toolbox'' information collection request (ICR), the FHWA will collect information on the current state of the practice, data, methods, and systems used by State, metropolitan, regional, local, and/ or tribal transportation entities to support their TPM processes in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119, 134-135, and 148-150, as amended by MAP- 21 and the FAST Act. This information will also be used to develop and deliver existing and future Federal Highway Programs through successful partnerships, value-added stewardship, and risk-based oversight. Underpinning this effort will be a robust focus on improving FHWA and its partners' capacity to implement performance provisions. The information collected from these activities will translate into having a better skilled workforce, effective supporting systems, and clearly articulated programs that are optimally positioned and equipped to deliver the FHWA's mission. In general, the components of the ``National TPM Implementation Review Survey, TPM State-of-Practice Questionnaires, and TPM Toolbox'' will involve questions related to: 1. TPM related implementation efforts, programs, and activities, 2. Needs for TPM guidance and policy concerning MAP-21 and FAST provisions; 3. TPM capacity building needs; 4. Effectiveness implementing performance based planning and programming and TPM processes. The most consequential activity covered by this ICR is the ``National TPM Implementation Review Survey,'' which is scheduled to be administered in 2016 and again several years later. Overview In the summer of 2015, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the National TPM Implementation Review Survey and Information Collection Request, Docket FHWA-2015-0013. In that 60-day Federal Register Notice (FRN), FHWA stated it would administer the first National TPM Implementation Review Survey in 2016 to establish a baseline and assess: 1. FHWA and its partners' progress implementing MAP-21 performance provisions and related TPM best practices; and 2. The effectiveness of performance-based planning and programming processes and transportation performance management. In that FRN, FHWA also stated that a second National TPM Implementation Review Survey will be conducted several years after the first to assess FHWA and its partners' progress in addressing any gaps or issues identified during the first survey. The findings from the first review survey will be used in a pair of statutory reports to Congress due in 2017 on the effectiveness of performance-based planning, programming processes, and transportation performance management (23 U.S.C. 119, 134(l)(2), and 135(h)(2)). The findings from the second survey will be used in a subsequent follow-up report. It is important to note that this is not a compliance review. The overall focus of the National TPM Implementation Review Survey is on the TPM and performance-based planning processes and practices used by STAs and MPOs, not the performance outcomes of those processes. FHWA received 20 comment letters and over 24 unique comments. While a number of concerns were expressed by the commenters, they generally supported the information collection request outlined in the FRN. Regarding the National TPM Implementation Review Survey, stakeholders were most concerned about the estimated burden of effort and time for administration of the survey. Based on those specific comments to the docket, it became clear that a majority of responding States, MPOs, and their respective associations want FHWA to: (1) ``coordinate with stakeholders when developing'' the design of any TPM surveys, questionnaires, or related instruments; (2) Provide more information on the type of questions to be asked as part of the National TPM Implementation Review Survey and any State-of-Practice Questionnaires; (3) Minimize the burden of effort to the greatest extent practicable; (4) Delay administration of National TPM Implementation Review Survey until after the final rulemakings; and (5) Share data from the National TPM Implementation Review Survey with States, MPOs, and their respective associations to support the development of federally and state funded TPM capacity building efforts. To address the first three concerns listed in the preceding paragraph, stakeholders can provide input on the design of National TPM Implementation Review Survey by: 1. Submitting comments on the draft survey questions and survey design report to the docket. 2. Participating in one of two webinar listening sessions on the design of the National TPM Implementation Review Survey. The date and time of these webinars will be advertised at www.fhwa.dot.gov/TPM. To receive an email notification announcing the date and time of these webinar listening sessions, please visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/TPM and subscribe to email updates. To address the concern on the timing of the National TPM Implementation Review Survey, FHWA decided to delay administering the review until after publication of the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning Final Rulemaking. [[Page 17760]] In addition to the more formal National TPM Implementation Review Survey, FHWA will conduct informal voluntary TPM State-of-Practice Questionnaires related to ongoing TPM policy and guidance, technical assistance, and capacity needs. To address concerns expressed by stakeholders regarding the burden of effort and administration of these additional questionnaires, FHWA is proposing to sequence the National TPM Implementation Review Survey and other State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires on a biennial cycle. Under this biennial cycle, the first National TPM Implementation Review Survey would be administered in 2016 and the follow-up in 2020. The smaller, less formal State-of- the-Practice Questionnaires would be administered in 2018 and 2022. The State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires are essential to helping FHWA coordinate with its many stakeholders to reduce duplicative survey efforts as the industry works to implement and understand the TPM practices. Under this sequencing, the National TPM Implementation Review Survey will continue to serve the original purpose of allowing FHWA to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to implement TPM and PBPP. The State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires will enable FHWA and its stakeholders to coordinate the collection of information necessary to advance the state-of-the-practice and further TPM capacity building efforts. This approach limits the number of TPM related surveys to 4 over a number of years:National TPM Implementation Review Survey (Baseline): 2016. State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires: 2018. National TPM Implementation Review Survey (Follow-up): 2020. State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires: 2022. After each survey or questionnaire, FHWA and its stakeholders will explore how to better align the information collection requests with yet-to-be determined performance management reporting processes. The information will be collected from State, metropolitan, regional, local, and/or tribal transportation agencies via internet-based questionnaires or web applications and will be used to help FHWA and its partner organizations do the following: Strategically plan to meet ever growing demand for TPM technical assistance needs; Develop and refine TPM policy and guidance based on stakeholder feedback; Channel resources to meet capacity development and training needs; and Identify and prioritize TPM research needs. Lastly, as part of FHWA's ongoing technical assistance efforts, a TPM Toolbox is being created to help FHWA's partners self-assess and benchmark their TPM implementation progress, capabilities, and gaps. The TPM Toolbox will also help FHWA streamline the integration and administration of all the efforts described above. To maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the TPM Toolbox, FHWA will collect business contact and organizational demographic (size of organization, location, etc.) information along with the responses submitted as part of the TPM Toolbox's self-assessment applications. Respondents: The 975 respondents estimate is based on soliciting input from 52 STA, 409 MPOS, and a sampling of other State and local transportation entities. In most cases, only STAs and MPOs will be surveyed. Frequency: Agencies will be solicited to provide information via a survey 1 time every two years. Additionally, transportation agencies may submit information more frequently by using the TPM Toolbox's self- assessment tool. Estimated Average Burden per Response: The estimated average annual burden hours is up to 20 hours per response during a year with a survey/questionnaire request. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The estimated total annual burden hours for all respondents is estimated to be 19,500 burden hours (975 respondents x 20 burden hours) per year with survey/questionnaire requests. Professional Staff Time During a Survey Year 20 hours/respondent x 975 respondents x 1 questionnaire during a survey year = 19,500 hours Clerical Staff Time During a Survey Year 2 hours/respondent x 975 respondents x 1 questionnaire during a survey year = 1,950 hours The aggregated associated salary cost to all respondents (975) during a survey year is estimated to be $1,032,213 based on an average salary of $38 per hour (approximately $79,000 per year) for professional staff and $18 per hour (approximately $37,000 per year) for clerical staff. Disaggregated, the total average annual cost per respondent during a survey year is estimated to be $1,058.68. The burden hours and costs are illustrated below. Professional Staff Cost During a Survey Year All respondents: 19,500 hours x $38 per hour = $741,000 [cir] Per respondent: (20 x $38 = $760) Clerical Staff Cost During a Survey Year All respondents: 1,950 hours x $18 per hour = $35,100 [cir] Per respondent (2 hours x $18 per hour = $36) Total Annual Cost During a Survey Year Subtotal Direct Salaries (Professional + Clerical) $776,100 Overhead/fringe benefits at 33%: $256,113 Total annual respondents cost during survey year: $1,032,213 [cir] Total average annual cost per respondent during survey year: $1,058.68 Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the U.S. DOT's performance, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the U.S. DOT's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued On: March 25, 2016. Michael Howell, Information Collection Officer. [FR Doc. 2016-07169 Filed 3-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
![17758 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices
a relocated threshold.3 Removal of a under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) if the grant. Petitions involving a SBGP
dislocated threshold is not considered a project is located in the community. If project must include facts describing the
runway extension.4 The definition of land is disturbed in the community, extraordinary circumstances that they
major runway extension that appears in then the project is considered to be believe justify the Secretary entertaining
Order 5050.4B, ¶9.l will be used in located in that community. The courts the petition.
interpreting Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). have also provided instruction on when
a project is located in a community. In F. Agency Response
(4) Communities in Which the Project Is City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F. 3d 448 The FAA will provide a written
Located (8th Cir. 2000), the court determined response to a petition to the Secretary.
The term community is not defined in that a community in which there was no The FAA may respond by outlining the
the statute. In the enabling legislation, construction and no significant noise issues raised in the petition and
this provision was entitled ‘‘Public impact could not challenge the failure to providing its responses either within the
Participation With Respect to Airport notify it that it could petition the environmental ROD, or it may elect to
Projects.’’ The term ‘‘community’’ will Secretary. Thus, outside the respond in a separate document.
be defined as a jurisdictional authority, construction context, a project may be Authority: 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), 14
that is, a political subdivision of a state, located in a community only if the CFR part 1.
such as a town, township, city, or project will have a significant impact on
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22,
county. Defining community as a the community. For example, where a 2016.
jurisdictional authority is consistent project will cause a significant noise
Elliott Black,
with the context of Section 47106(c). impact on a community, the project is
For example, in subsection (A)(i) the located in that community. If the project Director, Office of Airport Planning and
Programming APP–001.
statute speaks of ‘‘objectives of any does not create a significant impact in
the community, the community will [FR Doc. 2016–07165 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am]
planning that the community has
carried out.’’ Typically, only political have no right to petition the Secretary. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
subdivisions of a state, such as those E. Other Considerations
described above, would have planning
There are currently ten states that DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
authority. Similarly, in the FAA’s
experience, only a jurisdictional participate in the FAA’s State Block
Grant Program (SBGP). Under the Federal Highway Administration
authority or political subdivision would
be considered for voting representation program, the State agency (usually the [Docket No. FHWA–2016–0010]
on the airport’s governing authority. It is aviation division of the state
only in the absence of such voting Department of Transportation) assumes Agency Information Collection
representation of a jurisdictional responsibility for administering AIP Activities: Notice of Request for
authority or political subdivision that grants for non-primary airports Approval of a New Information
the statute provides the opportunity to (including several categories of AIP Collection
petition the Secretary. funds). See 49 U.S.C. Section 47128. As
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Defining community as a part of the responsibility, the state
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
jurisdictional authority or political assumes various responsibilities for the
FAA including reviewing and approving ACTION: Notice of request for approval of
subdivision is also consistent with the a new information collection.
definition of community in Order proposed changes to the Airport Layout
5050.4B, ¶1203(b)(1). Plan (ALP) and compliance with the SUMMARY: The FHWA has forwarded the
Accordingly, only a political National Environmental Policy Act information collection request described
subdivision of a state that enjoys general (NEPA).
in this notice to the Office of
The FAA interprets 49 U.S.C. Section
jurisdiction, or a Tribal government Management and Budget (OMB) for
47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) as not being generally
meets the definition of community in approval of a new information
applicable to a project approved and
this context. Political subdivisions of a collection. We published a Federal
administered as part of a state block
state that have a specific, substantive Register Notice with a 60-day public
grant. The plain language of this
authority, such as water districts or comment period on this information
statutory provision states that this
school districts, do not adequately collection on June 23, 2015. We are
Section is triggered when a proponent
represent the interests of the community required to publish this notice in the
submits a project grant application to
at large. They are not required to Federal Register by the Paperwork
the FAA. In the case of the SBGP, no
balance the interests of the whole Reduction Act of 1995.
such request is made because most of
community on a wide range of issues. the funds are given to the states as a DATES: Please submit comments by
Rather, they seek to promote their block (except for AIP Discretionary April 29, 2016.
specific substantive interest. funds), and the state assumes ADDRESSES: You may send comments
Additionally, water districts or school responsibility for administering those within 30 days to the Office of
districts would not normally be invited funds. Participants in the SBGP are Information and Regulatory Affairs,
to sit on an airport management board. required to engage communities Office of Management and Budget, 725
Thus, only a political subdivision of a according to FAA guidance and to 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
state which enjoys general jurisdiction circulate the draft EA if warranted. Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
is a community entitled to file a petition However, in cases where the project asked to comment on any aspect of this
under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). may involve a request for AIP information collection, including: (1)
Finally, under the statute, a Discretionary funding, or other Whether the proposed collection is
community is only eligible to petition extraordinary circumstances, the FAA necessary for the FHWA’s performance;
3 A relocated threshold leaves the pavement
may determine that a community (2) the accuracy of the estimated
usable only for taxiing. meeting the requirements set forth burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to
4 Pavement beyond a dislocated threshold is herein may have the right to petition the enhance the quality, usefulness, and
available for takeoff. Secretary in connection with an AIP clarity of the collected information; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_17819/page/1.svg)
![17760 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices
In addition to the more formal • Channel resources to meet capacity Professional Staff Cost During a Survey
National TPM Implementation Review development and training needs; and Year
Survey, FHWA will conduct informal • Identify and prioritize TPM • All respondents: 19,500 hours × $38
voluntary TPM State-of-Practice research needs. per hour = $741,000
Questionnaires related to ongoing TPM Lastly, as part of FHWA’s ongoing Æ Per respondent: (20 × $38 = $760)
policy and guidance, technical technical assistance efforts, a TPM
assistance, and capacity needs. To Toolbox is being created to help Clerical Staff Cost During a Survey Year
address concerns expressed by FHWA’s partners self-assess and • All respondents: 1,950 hours × $18
stakeholders regarding the burden of benchmark their TPM implementation per hour = $35,100
effort and administration of these progress, capabilities, and gaps. The Æ Per respondent (2 hours × $18 per
additional questionnaires, FHWA is TPM Toolbox will also help FHWA hour = $36)
proposing to sequence the National streamline the integration and
TPM Implementation Review Survey administration of all the efforts Total Annual Cost During a Survey Year
and other State-of-the-Practice described above. To maximize the • Subtotal Direct Salaries (Professional
Questionnaires on a biennial cycle. effectiveness and efficiency of the TPM + Clerical) $776,100
Under this biennial cycle, the first Toolbox, FHWA will collect business • Overhead/fringe benefits at 33%:
National TPM Implementation Review contact and organizational demographic $256,113
Survey would be administered in 2016 (size of organization, location, etc.) • Total annual respondents cost during
and the follow-up in 2020. The smaller, information along with the responses survey year: $1,032,213
less formal State-of-the-Practice submitted as part of the TPM Toolbox’s Æ Total average annual cost per
Questionnaires would be administered self-assessment applications. respondent during survey year:
in 2018 and 2022. The State-of-the- Respondents: The 975 respondents $1,058.68
Practice Questionnaires are essential to estimate is based on soliciting input Public Comments Invited: You are
helping FHWA coordinate with its from 52 STA, 409 MPOS, and a asked to comment on any aspect of this
many stakeholders to reduce duplicative sampling of other State and local information collection, including: (1)
survey efforts as the industry works to transportation entities. In most cases, Whether the proposed collection of
implement and understand the TPM only STAs and MPOs will be surveyed. information is necessary for the U.S.
practices. Frequency: Agencies will be solicited DOT’s performance, including whether
Under this sequencing, the National to provide information via a survey 1 the information will have practical
TPM Implementation Review Survey time every two years. Additionally, utility; (2) the accuracy of the U.S.
will continue to serve the original transportation agencies may submit DOT’s estimate of the burden of the
purpose of allowing FHWA to evaluate information more frequently by using proposed information collection; (3)
the effectiveness of efforts to implement the TPM Toolbox’s self-assessment tool. ways to enhance the quality, usefulness,
TPM and PBPP. The State-of-the- Estimated Average Burden per and clarity of the collected information;
Practice Questionnaires will enable Response: The estimated average annual and (4) ways that the burden could be
FHWA and its stakeholders to burden hours is up to 20 hours per minimized, including the use of
coordinate the collection of information response during a year with a survey/ electronic technology, without reducing
necessary to advance the state-of-the- questionnaire request. the quality of the collected information.
practice and further TPM capacity Estimated Total Annual Burden The agency will summarize and/or
building efforts. This approach limits Hours: The estimated total annual include your comments in the request
the number of TPM related surveys to 4 burden hours for all respondents is for OMB’s clearance of this information
over a number of years: estimated to be 19,500 burden hours
• National TPM Implementation collection.
(975 respondents × 20 burden hours) per Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
Review Survey (Baseline): 2016.
year with survey/questionnaire requests.
• State-of-the-Practice of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
Questionnaires: 2018. Professional Staff Time During a Survey and 49 CFR 1.48.
• National TPM Implementation Year Issued On: March 25, 2016.
Review Survey (Follow-up): 2020. Michael Howell,
• State-of-the-Practice • 20 hours/respondent × 975
Questionnaires: 2022. respondents × 1 questionnaire during Information Collection Officer.
After each survey or questionnaire, a survey year = 19,500 hours [FR Doc. 2016–07169 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am]
FHWA and its stakeholders will explore BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
Clerical Staff Time During a Survey
how to better align the information Year
collection requests with yet-to-be
determined performance management • 2 hours/respondent × 975 respondents DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
reporting processes. The information × 1 questionnaire during a survey year
= 1,950 hours National Highway Traffic Safety
will be collected from State, Administration
metropolitan, regional, local, and/or The aggregated associated salary cost
tribal transportation agencies via to all respondents (975) during a survey [Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0083, Notice 2]
internet-based questionnaires or web year is estimated to be $1,032,213 based
on an average salary of $38 per hour Decision That Nonconforming Model
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
applications and will be used to help
FHWA and its partner organizations do (approximately $79,000 per year) for Year 2014 Mercedes-Benz SLK Class
the following: professional staff and $18 per hour Passenger Cars Are Eligible for
• Strategically plan to meet ever (approximately $37,000 per year) for Importation
growing demand for TPM technical clerical staff. Disaggregated, the total AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
assistance needs; average annual cost per respondent Safety Administration (NHTSA),
• Develop and refine TPM policy and during a survey year is estimated to be Department of Transportation (DOT).
guidance based on stakeholder $1,058.68. The burden hours and costs
ACTION: Grant of petition.
feedback; are illustrated below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_17819/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-30 09:28:14
Document Modified: 2016-03-30 09:28:14
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of request for approval of a new information collection. | |
| Dates | Please submit comments by April 29, 2016. | |
| Contact | Michael Nesbitt ([email protected]), 202-366-1179, Office of Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 17758 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR