Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Notices 29995 

2See 42 U.S.C. 405(u)(2) and 1383(e)(7)(B). 

Act. We will consider any appeal in 

accordance with our rules for 

administrative review. 

B. Definitions 

1. Fraud. Fraud exists when a person, 

with the intent to defraud, either makes 

or causes to be made, a false statement 

or misrepresentation of a material fact 

for use in determining rights under the 

Act; or conceals or fails to disclose a 

material fact for use in determining 

rights under the Act. 

2. Similar Fault. Similar fault is 

involved with respect to a 

determination if: ‘‘an incorrect or 

incomplete statement that is material to 

the determination is knowingly made or 

information that is material to the 

determination is knowingly 

concealed.’’ 2

3. Material. Material describes a 

statement or information, or an 

omission from a statement or 

information that could influence us in 

determining entitlement to benefits 

under title II or eligibility for benefits 

under title XVI of the Act. 

4. Knowingly. Knowingly describes a 

person’s awareness or understanding 

regarding the correctness or 

completeness of the information he or 

she provides us, or the materiality of the 

information he or she conceals from us. 

5. Reason to Believe. Reason to 

believe means reasonable grounds to 

suspect that fraud or similar fault was 

involved in the application or the 

provision of evidence. The reason to 

believe standard requires more than 

mere suspicion, speculation, or a hunch, 

but it does not require a preponderance 

of evidence. 

C. Development and Evaluation 

1. Adjudicators at all levels of the 

administrative review process are 

responsible for taking all appropriate 

steps to resolve similar fault issues in 

accordance with the standards in this 

ruling. If we do not find that there is 

reason to believe evidence provided by 

a source involved similar fault, we will 

consider the evidence in accordance 

with our rules such as our rules 

regarding evaluating symptoms and 

medical evidence. We will adhere to 

existing due process and confidentiality 

requirements during the process of 

resolving similar fault issues. 

2. In making a determination or 

decision about whether there is similar 

fault, all adjudicators must: 

a. Consider all evidence in the case 

record before determining whether 

specific evidence must be disregarded. 

b. Determine if there is a reason to 

believe, as defined in this ruling, that 

similar fault was involved in the 

provision of evidence. Adjudicators may 

make reasonable inferences based on all 

the information in the record such as 

facts or case characteristics common to 

patterns of known or suspected 

fraudulent activity. For us to disregard 

evidence, it is not necessary that the 

affected beneficiary or recipient had 

knowledge of or participated in the 

fraud or similar fault. 

c. Disregard the evidence and fully 

document the record with the 

description of the disregarded evidence 

and the reasons for disregarding the 

evidence, if the adjudicator determines 

that there is a reason to believe similar 

fault was involved in the provision of 

the evidence. 

D. Notice of Determination or Decision 

In determinations or decisions that 

involve a finding of similar fault and 

disregarding evidence, the notice of 

determination or decision must: 

1. Explain the applicable provision of 

the Act that allows the adjudicator to 

disregard particular evidence due to a 

similar fault finding. 

2. Identify the documents or other 

evidence that is being disregarded. 

3. Provide a discussion of the 

evidence that supports a finding to 

disregard evidence. The discussion 

must explain that, in accordance with 

the law, the evidence identified cannot 

be used as evidence in a claim because, 

after considering all the information in 

the case record, the adjudicator has 

reason to believe that similar fault was 

involved in providing the evidence. A 

similar fault finding can be made only 

if there is reason to believe the person 

knew that the evidence provided was 

false or incomplete. A similar fault 

finding cannot be based on speculation 

or suspicion. 

4. Provide a determination or decision 

based on an evaluation of the remaining 

evidence in accordance with other rules 

and procedures. A similar fault finding 

does not constitute complete 

adjudicative action in any claim. A 

person may still be found entitled to 

benefits or eligible for payments despite 

that some evidence in the case record 

has been disregarded based on similar 

fault. For example, a person may be 

found to be under a disability based on 

impairments that are established by 

evidence that is not disregarded because 

of similar fault. 

5. Include standard appeal language. 

Cross-References: SSR 85–23: Title 

XVI: Reopening Supplemental Security 

Income Determinations at Any Time for 

‘‘Similar Fault’’; SSR 22–1p: Titles II 

and XVI: Fraud and Similar Fault 

Redeterminations Under Sections 205(u) 

and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security 

Act. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10559 Filed 5–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SSA–2020–0017] 

Social Security Ruling 22–1p; Titles II 

and XVI: Fraud and Similar Fault 

Redeterminations Under Sections 

205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social 

Security Act 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling 

(SSR). 

SUMMARY: We are providing notice of 

SSR 22–1p. This ruling rescinds and 

replaces SSR 16–1p and explains the 

revised process we will use to 

redetermine an individual’s entitlement 

to benefits or eligibility for payments 

under titles II or XVI of the Social 

Security Act (Act) when there is reason 

to believe that fraud or similar fault was 

involved in that individual’s original 

application for benefits or payments. We 

are revising the evidentiary standard for 

fraud and similar fault from a 

‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’ to 

‘‘reason to believe’’ to align more closely 

with the standard provided in the Act. 

We are also providing a new procedure 

at the hearings level of our 

administrative review process. The 

procedure provides that, before we 

disregard evidence under the Act at the 

hearings level of our administrative 

review process, we will consider the 

individual’s objection to the 

disregarding of that evidence. We expect 

that these revised procedures will allow 

us to implement relevant sections of the 

Act in a manner consistent with the 

decisions of the Courts of Appeals that 

have considered legal challenges to the 

procedures outlined in SSR 16–1p. 

DATES: We will apply this notice on May 

17, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Quatroche, Office of Disability 

Policy, Social Security Administration, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, 410–966–4794. For 

information on eligibility or filing for 

benefits, call our national toll-free 

number 1–800–772–1213 or visit our 

internet site, Social Security online, at 

http://www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 

5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not 

require us to publish this SSR, we are 

publishing it in accordance with 20 CFR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
29996 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Notices 

1Fraud and similar fault redeterminations under 

sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Act are 

distinct from reopenings as described in 20 CFR 

404.987–404.996 and 20 CFR 416.1487–416.1494. 

Fraud and similar fault redeterminations are also 

distinct from redeterminations of Supplemental 

Security Income eligibility under title XVI of the 

Act as described in 20 CFR 416.204 and 416.987. 2See 42 U.S.C. 405(u)(1)(B), 1383(e)(7)(A)(ii). 

402.35(b)(1). SSRs do not have the same 

force and effect as statutes or 

regulations, but they are binding on all 

components of the Social Security 

Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). 

We use SSRs to make available to the 

public precedential decisions relating to 

the Federal old-age, survivors, 

disability, supplemental security 

income, and special veterans benefits 

programs. We may base SSRs on 

determinations or decisions made in our 

administrative review process, Federal 

court decisions, decisions of our 

Commissioner, opinions from our Office 

of the General Counsel, or other 

interpretations of law and regulations. 

This SSR will remain in effect until 

we publish a notice in the Federal 

Register that rescinds it, or we publish 

a new SSR that replaces or modifies it. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 

Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006—Supplementary Security Income.) 

The Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, Kilolo Kijakazi, having 

reviewed and approved this document, 

is delegating the authority to 

electronically sign this document to 

Faye I. Lipsky, who is the primary 

Federal Register Liaison for the Social 

Security Administration, for purposes of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Faye I. Lipsky, 

Federal Register Liaison, Office of Legislation 

and Congressional Affairs, Social Security 

Administration. 

Policy Interpretation Ruling 

SSR 22–1p: Titles II and XVI: Fraud 

and Similar Fault Redeterminations 

Under Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of 

the Social Security Act 

This Social Security Ruling (SSR) 

rescinds and replaces SSR 16–1p: 

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Fraud and Similar 

Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 

205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social 

Security Act.’’ 

Purpose: To explain the process we 

use to redetermine an individual’s 

entitlement to benefits or eligibility for 

payments under titles II or XVI of the 

Social Security Act (Act) when there is 

reason to believe that fraud or similar 

fault was involved in that individual’s 

original application for benefits or 

payments.1

Citations (Authority): Sections 205(u) 

and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(u) and 1383(e)(7), as 

amended; 20 CFR 404.704, 404.708, 

404.1512, 404.1520, 416.912, 416.920, 

416.924, and 422.130. 

Dates: We will apply this notice on 

May 17, 2022. 

Introduction 

The Social Security Independence 

and Program Improvements Act of 1994, 

Public Law 103–296, amended the Act 

to add provisions addressing fraud or 

similar fault. These amendments to 

sections 205 and 1631 of the Act require 

us to immediately redetermine an 

individual’s entitlement to monthly 

insurance benefits under title II or 

eligibility for payments under title XVI 

if there is reason to believe that fraud or 

similar fault was involved in the 

individual’s application for such 

benefits or payments. 

The Act further provides that, when 

we redetermine entitlement or 

eligibility, or when we make an initial 

determination of entitlement or 

eligibility, ‘‘we shall disregard any 

evidence if there is reason to believe 

that fraud or similar fault was involved 

in the providing of such evidence.’’ 2 If, 

after redetermining entitlement to 

benefits or eligibility for payments, we 

determine that the evidence does not 

support entitlement to benefits or 

eligibility for payments, we may 

terminate such entitlement or eligibility 

and may treat benefits or payments paid 

based on such evidence as 

overpayments. 

This ruling explains the standards we 

use when we determine whether there 

is reason to believe that fraud or similar 

fault was involved in providing 

evidence in connection with an 

application for benefits or payments. 

The ruling applies to all applications for 

benefits under title II and payments 

under title XVI of the Act; e.g., claims 

for old-age and survivors benefits and 

disability benefits under title II of the 

Act, and applications for Supplemental 

Security Income payments for the aged, 

blind, and disabled under title XVI of 

the Act. 

This ruling also describes the process 

we use when we redetermine an 

individual’s entitlement to benefits or 

eligibility for payments when there is 

reason to believe that fraud or similar 

fault was involved in that individual’s 

original application for benefits or 

payments. 

This ruling does not replace or limit 

other appropriate standards and criteria 

for development and evaluation of 

claims in accordance with our rules. 

There may be instances in which we 

will not disregard evidence under the 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

ruling, but nevertheless, factors may 

exist that justify considering the 

evidence in question less persuasive or 

probative than other evidence. 

Policy Interpretation 

A. General 

1. Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of 

the Act require us to immediately 

redetermine an individual’s entitlement 

to monthly insurance benefits under 

title II or eligibility for payments under 

title XVI if there is reason to believe that 

fraud or similar fault was involved in 

the individual’s application for benefits 

or payments. 

2. The Act requires us to redetermine 

an individual’s entitlement or eligibility 

immediately, unless a United States 

Attorney or other Department of Justice 

prosecutor, or equivalent State 

prosecutor, with jurisdiction over 

potential or actual-related criminal 

cases, certifies, in writing, that there is 

a substantial risk that our action with 

regard to beneficiaries or recipients in a 

particular investigation would 

jeopardize the criminal prosecution of a 

person involved in a suspected fraud. 

3. We may discover suspected fraud 

or similar fault related to a claim for 

benefits or payments or in the provision 

of the evidence in a variety of ways. 

Most often, we learn about fraud from 

our Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG). OIG is responsible for 

investigating fraud within our programs 

and must notify us under section 1129(l) 

of the Act when it has reason to believe 

that fraud was involved in an 

individual’s claim for benefits or 

payments. We refer to this notification 

as a section 1129(l) referral. We may 

also learn about fraud from a Federal or 

State prosecutor during the course of a 

criminal investigation or prosecution. 

With regard to similar fault, as we 

administer our programs, we may 

uncover information that provides a 

reason to believe similar fault was 

involved in the provision of evidence in 

an individual’s claim for benefits or 

payments. 

4. We may find there is reason to 

believe fraud or similar fault was 

involved in a claim for benefits or 

payments, or in providing evidence, 

based on the actions of any individual 

whose actions affect an application for 

benefits or payments, or the evidence 

provided in support of it, even when 

such an individual has no direct 

relationship to the affected claimant, 

beneficiary, or recipient or acts without 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Notices 29997 

3SSR 11–1p: Titles II and XVI: Procedures for 

Handling Requests to File Subsequent Applications 

for Disability Benefits does not apply in the context 

of fraud or similar fault redeterminations. 

4See 42 U.S.C. 405(u)(2), 1383(e)(7)(B). 

the affected claimant’s, beneficiary’s, or 

recipient’s knowledge or participation. 

These individuals may include, but are 

not limited to, claimants, beneficiaries, 

auxiliaries, recipients, spouses, 

representatives, medical sources, 

translators, interpreters, and 

representative payees. For example, we 

may have reason to believe a medical 

source or a representative provided false 

information to support a claim without 

the knowledge or participation of the 

beneficiary or the recipient. 

5. When we redetermine an 

individual’s entitlement to benefits or 

eligibility for payments under sections 

205(u) or 1631(e)(7) of the Act, we must 

disregard evidence if there is reason to 

believe that fraud or similar fault was 

involved in providing that evidence. 

6. Except for evidence we are required 

to disregard under the Act, we will 

consider all other evidence that relates 

to the individual’s entitlement or 

eligibility during the period at issue in 

the redetermination, in accordance with 

our rules. Even if we disregard 

evidence, we will evaluate the 

remaining evidence of record and 

determine whether that evidence 

supports a finding of entitlement to 

benefits or eligibility for payments. This 

includes evidence included in the 

record at the time of the original 

favorable determination or decision, 

along with evidence provided during 

the redetermination process. When 

requested, we will help individuals 

obtain evidence relevant to the 

redetermination. 

7. If, after redetermining an 

individual’s entitlement to monthly 

insurance benefits under title II or 

eligibility for payments under title XVI, 

we determine that the evidence does not 

support such entitlement to benefits or 

eligibility for payments, we may 

terminate such entitlement or eligibility 

and may treat benefits paid or payments 

made based on such evidence as 

overpayments. 

8. If an individual disagrees with our 

finding that the evidence does not 

support his or her entitlement or 

eligibility at the time of the original 

favorable determination or decision, 

that individual may appeal our 

determination or decision. Together 

with such an appeal, an individual may 

object to our finding to disregard 

evidence under the Act. We will 

consider any appeal in accordance with 

our rules for administrative review. 

9. If the individual believes he or she 

was disabled at any point after the 

period at issue in the redetermination, 

he or she may file a new application 

while appealing our determination or 

decision.3

10. If we assess an overpayment, we 

will apply the provisions of 20 CFR part 

404, subpart F (20 CFR 404.501 et seq.) 

and 20 CFR part 416, subpart E (20 CFR 

416.501 et seq.). We will consider a 

request to waive the overpayment in 

accordance with our rules. 

B. Definitions 

1. Fraud. Fraud exists when a person, 

with the intent to defraud, either makes 

or causes to be made, a false statement 

or misrepresentation of a material fact 

for use in determining rights under the 

Act; or conceals or fails to disclose a 

material fact for use in determining 

rights under the Act. 

2. Similar Fault. Similar fault is 

involved with respect to a 

determination if: ‘‘an incorrect or 

incomplete statement that is material to 

the determination is knowingly made, 

or information that is material to the 

determination is knowingly 

concealed.’’ 4

3. Material. Material describes a 

statement or information, or an 

omission from a statement or 

information that could influence us in 

determining entitlement to benefits 

under title II or eligibility for payments 

under title XVI of the Act. 

4. Knowingly. Knowingly describes a 

person’s awareness or understanding 

regarding the correctness or 

completeness of the information he or 

she provides us, or the materiality of the 

information he or she conceals from us. 

5. Reason to Believe. Reason to 

believe means reasonable grounds to 

suspect that fraud or similar fault was 

involved in the application or in the 

provision of evidence. The reason to 

believe standard requires more than 

mere suspicion, speculation, or a hunch, 

but it does not require a preponderance 

of evidence. 

C. How We Redetermine an Individual’s 

Entitlement to Benefits or Eligibility for 

Payments Under Sections 205(u) and 

1631(e)(7) of the Act 

1. Under sections 205(u) and 

1631(e)(7) of the Act, we will 

immediately redetermine an 

individual’s entitlement to benefits or 

eligibility for payments when there is 

reason to believe that fraud or similar 

fault was involved in an individual’s 

application for benefits or payments, 

including the providing of evidence. 

2. We will disregard any evidence if 

we find there is reason to believe that 

fraud or similar fault was involved in 

the providing of such evidence. We will 

consider all evidence in the case record 

before determining whether specific 

evidence must be disregarded. In 

determining if there is reason to believe 

fraud or similar fault was involved, 

adjudicators may make reasonable 

inferences based on the totality of the 

circumstances such as facts or case 

characteristics common to patterns of 

known or suspected fraudulent activity. 

For us to disregard evidence it is not 

necessary that the affected beneficiary 

or recipient had knowledge of or 

participated in the fraud or similar fault. 

We will fully document the record with 

the description of the disregarded 

evidence and the reasons for 

disregarding the evidence. 

a. We will disregard evidence 

supplied, prepared, or signed by a 

medical source or nonmedical source 

when there is reason to believe that the 

source knowingly (1) provided incorrect 

or incomplete evidence material to the 

determination or decision or (2) 

concealed or failed to disclose evidence 

material to the determination or 

decision, even if it includes a report 

prepared or signed by another source. 

b. In certain circumstances, we may 

disregard evidence provided by 

someone who has not committed fraud 

or similar fault, but whose evidence 

relies on other evidence involving fraud 

or similar fault. For example, we may 

disregard parts of a medical source’s 

opinion, which relies on evidence that 

we disregarded from another medical 

source. Depending on the extent to 

which the medical source relied on the 

disregarded evidence, we may disregard 

some or all of the medical source’s 

opinion. 

c. Before we disregard evidence 

pursuant to sections 205(u)(1)(B) and 

1631(e)(7)(A)(ii) of the Act at the 

hearings level of our administrative 

review process, we will consider the 

individual’s objection to the 

disregarding of that evidence. After 

considering any objections, our 

adjudicators will decide whether there 

is reason to believe that fraud or similar 

fault was involved in providing 

evidence in the individual’s case. 

d. If we do not find there is reason to 

believe evidence provided by a source 

involved fraud or similar fault, we will 

consider the evidence in accordance 

with our rules, such as our rules 

regarding evaluating symptoms and 

medical evidence. We will adhere to 

existing due process and confidentiality 

requirements during the process of 

resolving fraud or similar fault issues. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
29998 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Notices 

5 20 CFR 404.903 and 416.1403. 

6 20 CFR 404.903(z) and 416.1403(a)(24). 

7 20 CFR part 404.501–404.545 and 20 CFR 

416.501–416.590. 

3. We will consider the claim only 

through the date of the final 

determination or decision on the 

beneficiary’s or recipient’s application 

for benefits or payments (i.e., the date of 

the original favorable determination or 

decision). 

4. We will consider evidence relevant 

to the issues we decide during a 

redetermination. For example, we will 

consider evidence that postdates the 

original date of the favorable 

determination or decision if that 

evidence relates to the period at issue in 

the redetermination. We will not 

develop evidence about new medical 

conditions or impairments arising after 

the date of the original favorable 

determination or decision. 

5. Generally, a finding that there is 

reason to believe fraud or similar fault 

was involved in providing evidence 

does not constitute complete 

adjudicative action on the 

redetermination. Even if we disregard 

evidence, we will evaluate the 

remaining evidence of record and 

determine whether that evidence 

supports a finding of entitlement to 

benefits or eligibility for payments. 

D. Appeal Rights 

1. Our regulations contain examples 

of administrative actions that are not 

initial determinations.5 Our initiation of 

a redetermination under sections 205(u) 

and 1631(e)(7) of the Act is not listed as 

an example in those regulations. 

However, the initiation of a 

redetermination is similar to the 

administrative action of starting or 

discontinuing a continuing disability 

review, which is listed as an example in 

the regulations of an administrative 

action that is not an initial 

determination.6 Therefore, we interpret 

our regulations to mean that our 

initiation of a redetermination under 

sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Act 

is not an initial determination that is 

subject to administrative or judicial 

review. 

2. After a redetermination, an 

individual who is dissatisfied with our 

determination or decision may request 

an appeal of our determination or 

decision. In conjunction with such an 

appeal, an individual may object to our 

finding to disregard evidence under the 

Act. We will consider any appeal in 

accordance with our rules for 

administrative review. 

3. An individual may appeal any 

overpayments we assess, or request 

waiver of the overpayment. We will 

consider any appeal of the assessment of 

an overpayment or a request for waiver 

of our overpayment in accordance with 

our rules.7

Cross-References: SSR 85–23: Title 

XVI: Reopening Supplemental Security 

Income Determinations at Any Time for 

‘‘Similar Fault’’; SSR 22–2p: Titles II 

and XVI: Evaluation of Claims Involving 

the Issue of Similar Fault in the 

Providing of Evidence. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10558 Filed 5–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice: 11733] 

Determination Under Subsection 

402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as 

Amended Extension of Waiver 

Authority 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

President under the Trade Act of 1974, 

as amended, Public Law 93–618, 88 

Stat. 1978 (hereinafter ‘‘the Act’’), and 

assigned to the Secretary of State by 

virtue of Section 1(a) of E.O. 13346 of 

July 8, 2004, and delegated by 

Department of State Delegation of 

Authority 513, of April 7, 2021, I 

determine, pursuant to Section 402(d)(1) 

of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that the 

further extension of the waiver authority 

granted by Section 402 of the Act will 

substantially promote the objectives of 

Section 402 of the Act. I further 

determine that continuation of the 

waiver applicable to Turkmenistan will 

substantially promote the objectives of 

Section 402 of the Act. 

This Determination shall be published 

in the Federal Register. 

Dated: April 18, 2022. 

Wendy Sherman, 

Deputy Secretary of State. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10575 Filed 5–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–46–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Limitation on Claims Against Proposed 

Public Transportation Projects— 

Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project, 

RapidRide Roosevelt (RapidRide J 

Line) Project, and Northern Bus 

Garage Renovation Project 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces final 

environmental actions taken by the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

regarding three projects: Southwest 

Corridor Light Rail Project, Portland, 

Tigard, and Tualatin County, Oregon; 

RapidRide Roosevelt (RapidRide J Line) 

Project, Seattle, Washington; and 

Northern Bus Garage Renovation 

Project, Washington, DC. The purpose of 

this notice is to announce publicly the 

environmental decisions by FTA on the 

subject projects and to activate the 

limitation on any claims that may 

challenge these final environmental 

actions. 

DATES: A claim seeking judicial review 

of FTA actions announced herein for the 

listed public transportation projects will 

be barred unless the claim is filed on or 

before October 14, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Loster, Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353–3869, 

or Saadat Khan, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Office of 

Environmental Programs, (202) 366– 

9647. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that FTA has taken final 

agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 

139(l) by issuing certain approvals for 

the public transportation projects listed 

below. The actions on the projects, as 

well as the laws under which such 

actions were taken, are described in the 

documentation issued in connection 

with the projects to comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and in other documents in the 

FTA environmental project files for the 

projects. Interested parties may contact 

either the project sponsor or the relevant 

FTA Regional Office for more 

information. Contact information for 

FTA’s Regional Offices may be found at 

https://www.transit.dot.gov. 

This notice applies to all FTA 

decisions on the listed projects as of the 

issuance date of this notice and all laws 

under which such actions were taken, 

including, but not limited to, NEPA (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4375), Section 4(f) 

requirements (23 U.S.C. 138, 49 U.S.C. 

303), Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 

306108), Section 6(f) of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

(54 U.S.C. 200305), Endangered Species 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531), Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. 1251), the Uniform 

Relocation and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act (42 U.S.C. 

4601), and the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES