35988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Notices 

2. Alternative 2: The Coast Guard 

would explore the acquisition of fewer 

OPCs after the completion of OPC–1 

through OPC–4 (which are still under 

contract). Five, ten, or fifteen OPCs 

would be considered via a recompetition of the original OPC contract 

as replacements for a corresponding 

number of in-service MECs. The Coast 

Guard would then replace the remaining 

MECs on a one-for-one basis, using 

whatever replacement hulls the Coast 

Guard could obtain when deterioration 

or obsolescence requires 

decommissioning. The life cycle 

training and logistical costs of 

maintaining several unique hulls would 

exceed the corresponding costs of 

maintaining a class of 25 cutters that 

would be built specifically to conduct 

missions in proposed action areas. Costs 

and challenges are similar to what is 

described under Alternative 3. 

3. Alternative 3: The Coast Guard 

would explore various forms of cutter 

purchase or lease, or inherit vessels 

from the Navy, as the need arises. This 

would mean that as a MEC reaches or 

surpasses the end of its economic and 

operational service life, that cutter 

would not necessarily be replaced with 

the same type of asset or by an asset 

with similar capabilities. 

The challenges involved with one-forone MEC replacements are best 

demonstrated by the 1999 acquisition of 

the U.S. Navy’s USS EDENTON, a 

salvage and rescue ship. The Coast 

Guard recommissioned the ship as the 

USCGC ALEX HALEY. The ship was 

designed in the early 1970s and, except 

for replacing her aged diesel engines, no 

significant environmental 

improvements were made. This is 

typical of a one-off ship acquisition 

because there is little justification for 

the extensive or expensive nonrecurring design engineering costs for 

specifications that would make the 

vessel capable of conducting missions 

assigned to MECs. Maintenance records 

maintained by the Surface Forces 

Logistics Center confirm the 

maintenance costs per operating hour 

for USCGC ALEX HALEY ($2,345) are 

62 percent higher than the equivalent 

costs for maintaining the average 270 ft 

(82 m) cutter ($1,445), as is typical for 

a one-of-a-kind ship. One-for-one MEC 

replacement would cost far more per 

replacement hull because it eliminates 

any workforce savings associated with a 

ship with capabilities designed 

specifically to conduct Coast Guard 

missions in offshore areas. The 

purchase, lease, or inherit alternative 

includes the lack of an existing 

domestic commercial vessel capable of 

meeting available options to Purchase 

and Build-to-Lease. One of the major 

challenges with this approach is that the 

Coast Guard would not have an 

integrated system of systems, thus assets 

would not be able to communicate in 

real time, they would operate at 

differing levels of efficiency (resulting 

in decreased efficiency throughout the 

system), and maintenance costs would 

be higher. 

The Coast Guard also carried forward 

the No Action Alternative for detailed 

analysis in the Final PEIS/POEIS. While 

the No Action Alternative would not 

satisfy the purpose and need for the 

Proposed Action, this alternative was 

retained to provide a comparative 

against which to analyze the effects of 

the Action Alternatives as required 

under CEQ’s NEPA regulation. 

Resource areas analyzed in the Final 

PEIS include: air quality, ambient 

sound, biological resources and critical 

habitat, and socioeconomic resources. 

Stressors analyzed in the Final PEIS 

include: acoustic stressors (fathometer 

and Doppler speed log noise, vessel 

noise, aircraft noise, and gunnery noise) 

and physical stressors (vessel 

movement, aircraft movement, and 

military expended materials). 

Based on the analysis presented in the 

Final PEIS/POEIS, potentially adverse 

impacts could occur to biological 

resources (i.e., from disturbance); 

however, practical mitigation measures 

presented in the Final PEIS/POEIS are 

expected to reduce any of these 

potential adverse effects. As a result, 

impacts to all resource areas would be 

less-than-significant (i.e., negligible, 

minor, or moderate) adverse or 

beneficial, which may result in the 

Coast Guard making a finding of no 

significant impact in the ROD. However, 

these findings are not final until the 

Coast Guard executes a ROD. 

A Notice of Availability and request 

for comments was published in the 

Federal Register Notice (86 FR 52162; 

September 20, 2021) to notify the public 

of the 45 day public review period of 

the Draft PEIS/POEIS. The Coast Guard 

received comments from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and 

two comments from the public. The 

Coast Guard considered and addressed 

in the Final PEIS/POEIS comments 

received on the Draft PEIS during the 

comment period. Public comments did 

not result in the addition of substantive 

revisions to the Draft PEIS. Responses to 

comments are in Appendix I of the Final 

PEIS/POEIS. An electronic copy of the 

Final PEIS/POEIS can be obtained using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov identified 

by docket number USCG–2021–0738, or 

by downloading from the project 

website at https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/ 

Our-Organization/AssistantCommandant-for-Engineering-LogisticsCG-4-/Program-Offices/EnvironmentalManagement/Environmental-Planningand-Historic-Preservation/. 

After publication of this NOA of the 

Final PEIS/POEIS, the Coast Guard will 

prepare and publish its ROD 

announcing which Alternative is 

environmentally preferred and which 

Alternative it selects for implementation 

(be it an Action Alternative or the No 

Action Alternative). Publication of the 

Final ROD will occur no sooner than 30 

days after the publication of the Final 

PEIS/POEIS. This notice is issued under 

authority of NEPA, specifically in 

compliance with 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) 

and CEQ implementing regulations in 

40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and 

Executive Order 12114 titled 

‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 

Federal Actions.’’ 

Dated: June 8, 2022. 

Andrew T. Pecora, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, OPC Program 

Manager (CG–9322). 

[FR Doc. 2022–12782 Filed 6–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

[CBP Dec. 22–12] 

Tuna Tariff-Rate Quota for Calendar 

Year 2022 Tuna Classifiable Under 

Subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Announcement of the quota 

quantity of tuna in airtight containers 

for Calendar Year 2022. 

SUMMARY: Each year, the tariff-rate quota 

for tuna described in subheading 

1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS), is 

calculated as a percentage of the tuna in 

airtight containers entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption during the preceding 

calendar year. This document sets forth 

the tariff-rate quota for Calendar Year 

2022. 

DATES: The 2022 tariff-rate quota is 

applicable to tuna in airtight containers 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the period 

January 1, 2022 through December 31, 

2022. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Notices 35989 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Peterson, Chief, Quota and Agricultural 

Branch, Interagency Collaboration 

Division, Trade Policy and Programs, 

Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, Washington, DC 

20229–1155, at (202) 384–8905 or by 

email at HQQUOTA@cbp.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It has been determined that 

14,672,350 kilograms of tuna in airtight 

containers may be entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption during Calendar Year 

2022, at the rate of 6.0 percent ad 

valorem under subheading 1604.14.22, 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Any such tuna 

which is entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption during the 

current calendar year in excess of this 

quota will be dutiable at the rate of 12.5 

percent ad valorem under subheading 

1604.14.30, HTSUS. 

Dated: June 8, 2022. 

AnnMarie R. Highsmith, 

Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

Trade. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12723 Filed 6–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–7050–N–24] 

30-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: HECM Counseling Client 

Survey, OMB Control No.: 2502–0585 

AGENCY: Office of Policy Development 

and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for the information collection 

described below. In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is 

requesting comment from all interested 

parties on the proposed collection of 

information. The purpose of this notice 

is to allow for an additional 30 days of 

public comment. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: July 14, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to OIRA_submission@

omb.eop.gov or www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colette Pollard, Reports Management 

Officer, REE, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 7th Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20410; email 

Colette Pollard at Colette.Pollard@

hud.gov or telephone 202–402–3400. 

This is not a toll-free number. Persons 

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. Copies of 

available documents submitted to OMB 

may be obtained from Ms. Pollard. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice informs the public that HUD is 

seeking approval from OMB for the 

information collection described in 

Section A. 

The Federal Register notice that 

solicited public comment on the 

information collection for a period of 30 

days was published on March 15, 2022 

at 87 FR 14552. 

A. Overview of Information Collection 

Title of Information Collection: HECM 

Counseling Survey. 

OMB Approval Number: 2502–0585. 

OMB Expiration Date: August 31, 

2019. 

Type of Request: Reinstatement, with 

change, of previously approved 

collection for which approval has 

expired. 

Form Number: HUD–92911. 

Description of the need for the 

information and proposed use: This 

collection expired on August 31, 2019. 

The Office of Housing Counseling does 

not use this form and wants to 

discontinue this collection however 

PRA Collection 2502–0585 must be 

reinstated before form OMB 83–D can be 

submitted to request that this collection 

be approved for discontinuation by 

OMB. 

Respondents: Not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

300. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 300. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Hours per Response: .25. 

Total Estimated Burden: 75 hours. 

B. Solicitation of Public Comment 

This notice is soliciting comments 

from members of the public and affected 

parties concerning the collection of 

information described in Section A on 

the following: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection 

of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of 

the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond; including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

(5) ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

HUD encourages interested parties to 

submit comment in response to these 

questions. 

C. Authority 

Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35. 

Colette Pollard, 

Department Reports Management Officer, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, 

Chief Data Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12750 Filed 6–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–7050–N–24] 

30-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act (HMDA) Loan/Application Register, 

OMB Control No.: 2502–0539 

AGENCY: Office of Policy Development 

and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for the information collection 

described below. In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is 

requesting comment from all interested 

parties on the proposed collection of 

information. The purpose of this notice 

is to allow for an additional 30 days of 

public comment. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: July 14, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1