Chinese tallow, native to China, is one of the most aggressive and widespread invasive weeds in the Southeastern United States; it grows as a large shrub, or a medium-height but large diameter tree, up to 60 feet tall and 3 feet in diameter with dark green bark and hairless leaves. Since its introduction, the weed has been reported primarily in 10 States including North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, and California. Tallow invasions alter species composition, community structure, and ecosystem processes in many native habitats.

Bikasha collaris is a small beetle. Adults are about 2 millimeters long and feed on tallow leaves, young stems, and even woody stems. In nature, females lay eggs on the soil surface at the base of plants. Larvae hatch and tunnel into the ground and feed on the roots of tallow plants. Gadirtha fusca is a small moth with adults about 2 centimeters long. Eggs are usually laid individually on leaves, and early and late instar larvae feed externally on leaves.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release are documented in detail in an environmental assessment (EA) entitled “Field Release of the Insects Bikasha collaris (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Gadirtha fusca (Lepidoptera: Nolidae) for Classical Biological Control of Chinese Tallow Tree in the Contiguous United States” (April 2020). We are making the EA available to the public for review and comment. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading DATES at the beginning of this notice.

The EA may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may also request paper copies of the EA by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the EA when requesting copies.

The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Title: Importation of Gypsy Moth Host Materials From Canada.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0142.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA. Regulations governing the importation of gypsy moth host material into the United States from Canada are contained in 7 CFR 319.77-1 through 319.77-5.

The regulations are intended to prevent the introduction of gypsy moth into noninfested areas of the United States by placing certain inspection and documentation requirements on gypsy moth host material ( i.e., regulated articles) imported from Canada. Under the regulations, depending on the place of origin of the regulated articles and their destination in the United States, certain information collection activities are required such as a phytosanitary certificate, certificate of origin, written statement, compliance agreement, and emergency action notification.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

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

(4) Minimize the burden on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.375 hours per response.

Respondents: Canadian plant health authorities; growers, exporters, or shippers of Christmas trees, shrubs, logs, pulpwood, and other articles from gypsy moth-infested provinces in Canada; and private individuals entering the United States with mobile homes or outdoor household articles.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 3,201.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 4.

Estimated annual number of responses: 11,612.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 4,358 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

On November 14, 2019, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register (84 FR 61868, Docket No. APHIS-2019-0076) a notice  1 informing the public of APHIS' intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing alternatives for predator damage management (PDM) in Oregon. We will continue to prepare the EIS under the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations in effect on the date of the notice of intent's publication (November 14, 2019) and APHIS' National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Predators provide many positive ecological, cultural, and aesthetic benefits. They may also be involved in conflicts with humans, including preying upon or harassing livestock; damaging other agricultural resources and property; and threatening human health and safety. In limited instances, predation may impede wildlife management agency efforts to enhance populations of prey species, such as threatened or endangered species or ungulate populations. APHIS' Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) program evaluates and responds to requests for assistance with PDM from the public, private entities, other agencies, and Native American Tribes within the State of Oregon. APHIS-WS only becomes involved in PDM if it has received a request for assistance and has established appropriate agreements and authorizations with the landowners/managers, applicable agency, or Tribal authorities. Over fiscal years 2015-2019, APHIS-WS responded to more than 6,700 requests per year for information or assistance in reducing conflicts with predators in Oregon.

APHIS-WS in Oregon currently uses an integrated approach to PDM. The approach involves access to the full range of legally available nonlethal and lethal PDM methods to reduce conflicts with coyote, black bear, striped skunk, raccoon, cougar (mountain lion), red fox, bobcat, badger, Virginia opossum, gray fox, feral/free-ranging/hybrid dog, feral and free-ranging domestic cat, spotted skunk, weasel, and gray wolf. APHIS-WS assistance may be in the form of advice, depredation investigations, information on sources of PDM materials, training, and loan of equipment (technical assistance) or hands-on assistance with implementing PDM methods (operational assistance). APHIS-WS applies methods in accordance with applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local regulations. APHIS-WS develops and annually renews work plans with land management agencies to address specific activities and restrictions required to safely conduct PDM on public lands in a manner consistent with applicable land management agency policies and resource management plans.

APHIS-WS gives preference to practical and effective nonlethal methods. In some cases, concurrent use of nonlethal and lethal methods or immediate use of lethal methods may be the most appropriate solution ( e.g., threats to human safety). APHIS-WS may use or recommend the following methods to reduce damage: Changes to agricultural practices, capture and relocation, livestock guarding animals, habitat modification, exclusion, frightening devices, carcass disposal, human behavior modification ( e.g., trash management and not feeding wildlife), shooting from the ground or from aircraft, gas cartridges, snares, traps, and trained decoy and tracking dogs. APHIS-WS is not proposing to use M-44s or Compound-1080 in Oregon.

APHIS-WS conducts its activities pursuant to the Acts of March 2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 8351-8352), as amended, and December 22, 1987 (7 U.S.C. 8353), which established APHIS-WS' authority to provide its services. APHIS-WS also coordinates its PDM activities in Oregon pursuant to memoranda of understanding with the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM). APHIS-WS also conducts its activities in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.

APHIS-WS is preparing an EIS to evaluate alternatives for agency involvement in managing damage and conflicts associated with predators in Oregon. APHIS-WS will serve as the lead Federal agency for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The U.S. Forest Service and BLM are cooperating agencies on the EIS. Once completed, the EIS will replace APHIS-WS' existing environmental assessments on predator damage management and the separate environmental assessment on wolf damage management in Oregon. 2

BLM intends to adopt the EIS and analysis to streamline and facilitate future site-specific NEPA analysis and implementation actions on BLM-administered lands for all BLM Oregon districts. The BLM in Oregon may authorize APHIS-WS in Oregon to perform certain wildlife damage control activities on BLM-administered lands in accordance with a separately issued BLM Record of Decision.

We encourage comments that will assist in further delineating the scope of alternatives, environmental impacts, and other issues of public concern. Please also submit any scientific data, research, or studies that you believe are relevant to the analysis. Comments, information, and analyses provided should be as specific as possible to explain why the information is important to the analysis.

The EIS will consider a range of reasonable alternatives. The EIS will include a “no action” alternative, which is defined as a continuation of the ongoing predator damage management practices described above, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). We are considering the following alternatives for comparative analysis in the EIS:

• APHIS-WS in Oregon continues the current PDM activities as previously analyzed under NEPA;

• APHIS-WS in Oregon continues the current PDM activities and includes additional wolf damage management activities aligned with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management authorities and with State rules and statutes identified in the 2019 Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan;

• APHIS-WS in Oregon conducts only non-lethal PDM activities;

• APHIS-WS in Oregon conducts only non-lethal PDM activities, except in cases involving the protection of human/pet health and safety or protection of federally threatened or endangered species; or

• APHIS-WS in Oregon conducts no PDM activities in Oregon.

We welcome additional recommendations for management alternatives.

In considering reasonable alternatives, the EIS will analyze the effects of APHIS-WS' PDM activities in Oregon on important environmental issues and other issues of public concern. APHIS-WS and the cooperating agencies have identified the following issues for consideration in the EIS:

• Impacts of intentional take on State and regional predator populations;

• Effects on nontarget animal populations, including species federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (61 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. );

• Impacts of the alternatives on predator-prey relationships and ecosystem processes ( e.g., trophic cascades);

• Humaneness and ethical perspectives regarding PDM activities;

• Risks and benefits to human and pet safety from PDM activities;

• Impacts on Special Management Areas, including Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas; and

• Sociocultural impacts, including impacts on values, hunting, non-consumptive uses, aesthetic impacts, Native American cultural uses, and economic effects.

We encourage the public to submit comments identifying additional issues.

After the comment period closes, APHIS-WS will review and consider all comments timely received and any other relevant information in the development of the EIS. All comments received will be available for public review as required and allowed by law. Upon completion of the draft EIS, APHIS-WS will publish a notice announcing its availability and an opportunity to comment in the Federal Register and via the GovDelivery.com email registry. To receive notices regarding this project or other Wildlife Services NEPA projects, please register at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new.

The EIS will be prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ); (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) in effect at the time of the publication of our notice of intent (November 14, 2019); (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b); and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

These meetings are available to the public through the Webex links above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing. may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the call-in number found through registering at the web link provided for each meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of each meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the respective meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

For copies of meeting documents, email afortes@usccr.gov. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-367-2403, conference ID number: 2900555. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or email Ana Victoria Fortes at afortes@usccr.gov. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzl0AAA.

Please click on “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

For copies of meeting documents, email afortes@usccr.gov. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-353-6461, conference ID number: 5120066. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or email Ana Victoria Fortes at afortes@usccr.gov.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzl0AAA.

Please click on “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

The meeting is available to the public through the web link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing. Individuals may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

The Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of basic demographic information on the Current Population Survey (CPS) beginning in November 2021. The current clearance expires October 31, 2021.

The CPS has been the source of official government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 70 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau jointly sponsor the basic monthly survey. The Census Bureau also prepares and conducts all the field work. At the OMB's request, the Census Bureau and the BLS divide the clearance request in order to reflect the joint sponsorship and funding of the CPS program. BLS submits a separate clearance request for the portion of the CPS that collects labor force information for the civilian noninstitutional population. Some of the information within that portion includes employment status, number of hours worked, job search activities, earnings, duration of unemployment, and the industry and occupation classification of the job held the previous week. The justification that follows is in support of the demographic data.

The demographic information collected in the CPS provides a unique set of data on selected characteristics for the civilian noninstitutional population. Some of the demographic information we collect are age, marital status, sex, Armed Forces status, education, race, origin, and family income. We use these data in conjunction with other data, particularly the monthly labor force data, as well as periodic supplement data. We also use these data independently for internal analytic research and for evaluation of other surveys. In addition, we use these data as a control to produce accurate estimates of other personal characteristics.

The CPS basic demographic information is collected from individual households by both personal visit and telephone interviews each month. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing. Households in the CPS are in sample for four consecutive months, and for the same four months the following year. This is called a 4-8-4 rotation pattern; households are in sample for four months, in a resting period for eight months, and then in sample again for four months.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0049.

Form Number(s): There are no forms. All interviews are conducted on computers.

Type of Review: Regular submission, Request for an Extension, without Change of a Currently Approved Collection.

Affected Public: Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 59,000 per month.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,700.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: There is no cost to the respondents other than their time (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 8(b), 141, and 182.

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 ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.

The Census Bureau's procedures for outreach, notice, and consultation ensure involvement of tribes, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, before making decisions or implementing policies, rules, or programs that affect federally recognized tribal governments. These meetings are open to citizens of federally recognized tribes by invitation.

The Census Bureau's Decennial Directorate and the Intergovernmental Affairs Office have been responsible for the development and implementation of outreach and promotion activities to assist in obtaining a complete and accurate census count in 2020 among all residents, including the American Indian and Alaska Native populations. This program is one part of the overall outreach and promotion efforts directed at building awareness about the importance of the Census Bureau's commitment to produce quality 2020 Census American Indian and Alaska Native data for all tribal communities and organizations.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, issued November 6, 2000, the Census Bureau has adhered to its tribal consultation policy by seeking the input of tribal governments in the planning and implementation of the 2020 Census with the goal of ensuring the most accurate counts and data for the American Indian and Alaska Native population. The Census Bureau conducted one national tribal consultation webinar in September 2019 and two formal tribal consultation meetings in October 2019 and February 2020 specific to the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System. The February 18 national webinar will provide a forum for tribes to receive an update and to provide input on the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System regarding work done specifically for the American Indian and Alaska Native tribal areas.

For more information, please see the following URL link: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census/planning-management/2020-census-data-products/2020-das-updates.html.

In preparation for the February 18 webinar, we are seeking comments in response to the specific questions on the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System and the American Indian and Alaska Native Geography Hierarchy.

How does your tribe use data from the redistricting (Pub. L. 94-171) data product? Please be specific as to the use, variable(s), and level(s) of geography.

Example: Our tribal government uses total population counts at the Census tract level, as a percentage of the total state population, to apply for state administered social assistance grants.

How does your tribe use data from the Demographic Profiles and Demographic and Housing Characteristics data products? Please be specific as to the use, variable(s), and level(s) of geography.

Example: Our native village uses average household size and race/ethnicity composition at the block group level to apply for state administered housing grants, which accounted for 27% of our annual housing assistance budget in 2019.

With the understanding that protecting the privacy of Census respondents requires that some uncertainty/noise be added to the data (as it has been in prior Censuses), which of the use cases that you identified in question #1 are most important to your tribe?

With the understanding that protecting the privacy of Census respondents requires that some uncertainty/noise be added to the data (as it has been in prior Censuses), at what level of statistical uncertainty would the tabulations included in the redistricting (Pub. L. 94-171), Demographic Profiles, or Demographic and Housing Characteristics files no longer be usable for the use cases that you identified in question #1.

Example: If total population at the Census tract level differed from the enumerated count by more than ±3%, our tribe would be obligated to rely on other data sources as evidence to support our grant applications.” Or “If the AIAN Alone or in Combination population of our county differed from the enumerated count by more than 10 persons, we would be unable to rely upon the data for our tribe's demographic projections because they would be less accurate than the data we collect ourselves.

Steven D. Dillingham, Director, Bureau of the Census, approved the publication of this Notice in the Federal Register .

Upon request, BIS will initiate an investigation to determine the effects of imports of specific commodities on the national security and will make the findings known to the President for possible adjustments to imports through tariffs. The findings are made publicly available and are reported to Congress. The purpose of this collection is to account for the public burden associated with the surveys distributed to determine the impact on national security.

These surveys are designed to gather information so that BIS can evaluate the impact of foreign imports of strategic commodities on the national security of the United States. Each Section 232 study is for a specific commodity or technology that is required for national security reasons ( e.g., precision bearings, microprocessors, machine tools, etc). These surveys attempt to determine the size of the domestic U.S. industry, how the domestic U.S. industry has been effected by foreign imports, demand for the commodity during peacetime, demand during wartime, the ability of the U.S. domestic industry to meet a surge in demand during wartime, and the potential impact on U.S. national security if wartime demand cannot be met by domestic U.S. suppliers.

BIS custom-designs unique instruments for each Section 232 survey. The method of collection could be via paper or electronic.

OMB Control Number: 0694-0120.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 800.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: 0.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

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 ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.

On March 10, 2020, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order  1 on hardwood plywood from China with respect to 58 producers/exporters. 2 Subsequently, we released U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data to interested parties for comment. 3 We received comments from the petitioner  4 but no other interested party commented on the CBP data.

In April 2020, we received timely no-shipment certifications from 24 companies, 5 and we also received a separate rate certification (SRC) from Yuantai. 6 We did not receive a no-shipment statement, separate rate application (SRA), or SRC from any other company subject to this review. Also, in April 2020, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll administrative review deadlines by 50 days. 7 As a result, all deadlines in this proceeding were extended by 50 days.

In April and May 2020, we requested additional information from Yuantai related to its SRC, 8 and although Yuantai timely provided some information, 9 it later informed Commerce that it was unable to respond further because the company had ceased operations. 10

In July 2020, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll administrative review deadlines by an additional 60 days. 11 The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now January 21, 2021. 12

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 13 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix III 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 http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this order is hardwood plywood from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 14

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213.

Based upon the no-shipment certifications received by Commerce, and our review of CBP data, we preliminarily find that 24 companies had no shipments during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Consistent with our assessment practice in non-market economy administrative reviews, 15 Commerce is not rescinding this review for these 24 companies. 16 Commerce intends to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.

Commerce preliminarily finds that Yuantai has not established its eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally, because 33 other companies under review did not submit a no-shipment certification, SRA, or SRC, Commerce preliminarily determines that these companies have not demonstrated their eligibility for separate rates. 17 For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 18 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the China-wide entity. 19 Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the China-wide entity is not under review and the China-wide entity's rate ( i.e., 183.36 percent) is not subject to change. 20 For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c), case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs. 21 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 22

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. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to those issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined. 23

Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, AD duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. 24 We have not calculated any assessment rates in this administrative review. Based on record evidence, we have determined that 24 companies had no shipments of subject merchandise and, therefore, pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice, any suspended entries that entered under their case numbers, where available, will be liquidated at the China-wide entity rate. 25 For all remaining companies subject to this review, which are part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate their entries at the current rate for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 183.36 percent). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . 26

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the 24 companies that had no shipments during the POR will remain unchanged from the rates assigned to them in the most recently completed segment for each company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 183.36 percent); and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

On July 28, 2020, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review. 1 We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. No party submitted comments. Accordingly, the final results remain unchanged from the Preliminary Results.

The scope of the order covers magnesia carbon bricks from China. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily found that Fedmet had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. As noted in Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we received a no shipment statement from Fedmet, and the statement was consistent with the information we received from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2

No party commented on our preliminary no-shipment finding with respect to Fedmet. Therefore, for these final results, we continue to find that Fedmet had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

With the exception of Fedmet, we find all other companies for which a review was requested to be part of the China-wide entity because they failed to file no-shipment statements, SRAs, or SRCs. Accordingly, the following companies are part of the China-wide entity: (1) Dandong Xinxing Carbon Co., Ltd.; (2) Fengchi Imp. and Exp. Co.; (3) Fengchi Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City; (4) Fengchi Mining Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City; (5) Fengchi Refractories Co., of Haicheng City; (6) Haicheng Donghe Taidi Refractory Co., Ltd.; (7) Henan Xintuo Refractory Co., Ltd.; (8) Liaoning Fucheng Refractories; (9) Liaoning Zhongmei High Temperature Material Co., Ltd.; (10) Liaoning Zhongmei Holding Co., Ltd.; (11) RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd.; (12) Shenglong Refractories Co., Ltd.; (13) Tangshan Strong Refractories Co., Ltd.; (14) The Economic Trading Group of Haicheng Houying Corp. Ltd.; (15) Yingkou Heping Samwha Minerals, Co., Ltd.; and (16) Yingkou Heping Sanhua Materials Co., Ltd.

Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, and Commerce no longer considers the China-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews, we did not conduct a review of the China-wide entity. The rate previously established for the China-wide entity is 236.00 percent and is not subject to change as a result of this review.

We have not calculated any assessment rates in this administrative review. Based on record evidence, we have determined that Fedmet had no shipments of subject merchandise, and therefore, pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice, any suspended entries that entered under its case number will be liquidated at the China-wide entity rate. 3

For all remaining companies subject to this review, which are part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate their entries at the current rate for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 236.00 percent). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, and which were not assigned the China-wide rate in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed period; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the China-wide rate of 236.00 percent; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Background: The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry.

Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. Any member of the public requesting to join the meeting is asked to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to fill. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Members of the public wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5:00 p.m. EST on Wednesday, February 3, 2021, for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the members of the Board.

In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Jennifer Aguinaga at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Wednesday, February 3, 2021, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered during the meeting. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 On July 24, 2020, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of this administrative review. 2 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. A complete summary of events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Results can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3

The merchandise subject to this order is certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description of the scope of the order remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received from parties, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce made certain changes to the Preliminary Results. Specifically, we revised our treatment of Shin Yang's purchases of hot-rolled coil from its affiliate. 5 In addition, we used the updated U.S. sales database provided by Shin Yang on March 3, 2020. 6 However, these revisions did not result in a change to the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Shin Yang in these final results of review.

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Shin Yang for the POR from May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, AD duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

For Shin Yang, because its weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), Commerce has calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) antidumping duty assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. 7 We calculated importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total sales quantity associated with those sales.

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Shin Yang for which the company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register .

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Shin Yang will be equal to the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers and/or exporters not covered in this review, but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 9.70 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 8 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Advance registration is required for the webinar at: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/6060715212000442635. The agenda, speakers and time are subject to change, please refer to the website for the most updated information. The HSRP meeting agenda, draft meeting documents, presentations, and background materials are posted and updated online and can be downloaded prior to the meeting at: https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/hsrp.html and https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/meetings.html .

Past HSRP recommendation letters, issue and position papers are located online at: https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/recommendations.html.

Public comments are encouraged and requested on the navigation services portfolio for CO-OPS, NGS and OCS. Advance written statements will be shared with the HSRP members and will be included in the meeting public record. Due to the condensed nature of the meeting, each individual or group providing written public comments will be limited to one comment per public comment period with no repetition of previous comments. Comments can also be submitted in writing during the public comment period through the webinar. Comments will be read into the record, transcribed, and become part of the meeting record. Due to time meeting constraints, all comments may not be addressed during the meeting.

The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) is a Federal Advisory Committee established to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Administrator, on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended, and such other appropriate matters that the Under Secretary refers to the Panel for review and advice.

The panel is convening on issues relevant to NOAA's navigation services, including stakeholder use of navigation services data, products and services, and other topics related to hydrographic surveys, nautical charting, the ongoing National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) modernization including changes to flood plain management, navigation services contributions to resilience and coastal data and information systems, coastal and ocean modeling, PORTS® (Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System) sensor enhancements and expansion, the projects of the NOAA-University of New Hampshire Joint Hydrographic Center Cooperative Agreement, the new NOAA five-year cooperative agreement with the University of Southern Florida to launch the Center for Ocean Mapping and Innovative Technologies (COMIT), updates on legislative and budget priorities, and other topics. Navigation services include the data, products, and services provided by the NOAA programs and activities that undertake geodetic observations, gravity modeling, coastal and shoreline mapping, bathymetric mapping and modeling, hydrographic surveying, nautical charting, tide and water level observations, current observations, flooding, resilience, inundation and sea level rise, marine and coastal modeling, geospatial and LIDAR data, and related topics. This suite of NOAA products and services support safe and efficient navigation, resilient coasts and communities, and the nationwide positioning information infrastructure to support America's climate needs and commerce. The Panel will hear about the missions and uses of NOAA's navigation services, the value these services bring, and what improvements could be made. Other matters may be considered.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities and there will be sign language interpretation and captioning services. Please direct requests for other auxiliary aids to Melanie.Colantuno@noaa.gov at least 10 business days in advance of the meeting.

This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations  1 and designated contract markets (“DCM”), each of which is a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) regulated by the Commission. The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year to cover the costs of operating this Commission program. 2 The fees are set each year based on direct program costs, plus an overhead factor. The Commission calculates actual costs, then calculates an alternate fee taking volume into account, and then charges the lower of the two. 3

The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs generally consist of the following Commission-wide costs: Indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 169 percent for FY 2017, 182 percent for FY 2018, and 174 percent for FY 2019.

Under the formula adopted by the Commission in 1993, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission's SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission's reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year.

As noted above, adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs. The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume.

The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years.

The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In this formula, “a” equals the average annual costs, “v” equals the percentage of total volume across DCMs over the last three years, and “t” equals the average annual costs for all DCMs. NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its fee is based simply on costs for the most recent three fiscal years. This table summarizes the data used in the calculations of the resulting fee for each entity:

An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth here:

As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2017 through 2019 was $569,735. The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $569,735.

Fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission are as follows:

The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds. See 31 U.S.C. 3720. For information about electronic payments, please contact Jennifer Fleming at (202) 418-5034 or jfleming@cftc.gov, or see the CFTC website at https://www.cftc.gov, specifically, https://www.cftc.gov/cftc/cftcelectronicpayments.htm.

Fees collected from each self-regulatory organization shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts. See 7 U.S.C 16a.

The Bureau works to ensure a fair, transparent, and competitive consumer financial marketplace. To that end, the Bureau seeks to promote access to financial products and services for all consumers, including LEP consumers. 1 Despite having considerable credit needs and representing a large segment of the U.S. population, LEP consumers often encounter significant barriers to participating in the consumer financial marketplace. 2 Many of these challenges stem from language access issues—financial disclosures and written documents are generally not available in languages other than English and some financial institutions do not have bilingual employees or access to interpretation services. 3

Recognizing the compliance risks and uncertainty that many financial institutions raise as challenges to better serving LEP consumers in non-English languages, the Bureau is issuing this Statement to outline compliance principles and guidelines that encourage financial institutions to expand access to products and services for LEP consumers. In doing so, the Bureau seeks to: (1) Promote access to financial products for all consumers; (2) facilitate compliance by providing clear rules of the road; and (3) educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions. 4 Financial institutions play an important role in building a more inclusive financial system and presenting opportunities for LEP consumers to build their financial capabilities. 5 The effective and responsible integration of LEP consumers into the financial marketplace has the potential to create positive benefits for consumers and the financial services industry alike. 6

The Dodd-Frank Act emphasizes the Bureau's role in ensuring “fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit.”  7 Consistent with that purpose, the Bureau encourages financial institutions to promote access to financial products and services for all consumers by better serving LEP consumers. In providing such assistance and serving LEP consumers, financial institutions must also comply with Dodd-Frank Act prohibitions against engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice (UDAAP)  8 and the ECOA. 9 This Statement provides guidance on how financial institutions can provide access to credit in languages other than English in a manner that is beneficial to consumers, while taking steps to ensure financial institutions' actions are compliant with the ECOA, the prohibitions against UDAAPs, and other applicable laws.

Approximately 22 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 5 (in all, 67.8 million people) speak a language other than English at home and, of these, 37.6 percent are LEP. 10 LEP consumers face unique challenges in learning about and accessing financial products and services. 11 For instance, limited English proficiency can hinder consumers' financial literacy and make it difficult to conduct everyday financial affairs, including understanding and completing key financial documents, managing bank accounts, resolving problems with financial products and institutions, and accessing financial education and money management tools. 12 Attempts to address these challenges have led to myriad Federal and State statutes and regulations. 13

Over the past several years, to gain insights to inform policy decisions, the Bureau has engaged with stakeholders on fair lending compliance topics and access to credit issues. The Bureau participated in robust information-gathering activities, including meetings with consumer and civil rights advocacy organizations, other Federal agencies, policymakers, representatives from financial institutions of various sizes, and trade associations to obtain feedback on the provision of financial products and services to LEP consumers. Bureau leadership and staff presented on LEP-related topics and gathered feedback from stakeholders at conferences and other external and internal events. In addition, the Bureau conducted research on complaints submitted to the Bureau reflecting LEP consumers' experience with financial institutions. These efforts resulted in the Bureau's November 2017 publication, Spotlight on serving limited English proficient consumers. 14 In addition, the Bureau's 2016 Fall edition of Supervisory Highlights provides supervisory observations regarding financial institutions' provision of non-English language services to LEP consumers. 15

Since that time, the Bureau has continued its work on LEP-related issues. In the Bureau's 2019 Fair Lending Report to Congress, the Director identified that “[o]ne particular fair lending issue ripe for innovative solutions is making financial products and services more accessible to consumers who are unbanked and underbanked, including those who are Limited English Proficient.”  16

In July 2020, the Director held an LEP Consumer and Industry Roundtable that convened representatives from consumer and civil rights advocacy organizations, policymakers, industry, and trade associations. The Bureau has also received input through numerous stakeholder meetings, comments to rulemakings, and various Requests for Information (RFIs) regarding access to credit for LEP consumers. 17 Many of these responsive comments and submissions urged the Bureau to provide additional guidance to institutions seeking to expand their offering of products and services to LEP consumers while maintaining compliance with applicable laws. 18

Most recently, on August 3, 2020, the Bureau issued an RFI “to identify opportunities to prevent credit discrimination, encourage responsible innovation, promote fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, address potential regulatory uncertainty, and develop viable solutions to regulatory compliance challenges under the ECOA and Regulation B.”  19 Among the requests, the Bureau sought information that would enable it “to understand the challenges specific to serving LEP consumers and to find ways to encourage creditors to increase assistance to LEP consumers.”  20 Specifically, the RFI asked:

The Bureau received a wide variety of responses to this question from several stakeholder groups, including consumer and civil rights advocacy organizations, financial institutions, industry trade associations, other financial regulators, and individuals. 22 Almost all commenters recognize the importance of providing products and services to LEP consumers. Some consumer advocacy organizations request that changes to LEP-related legal requirements take place via notice-and-comment rulemaking. They also suggest that the Bureau require institutions to develop a Language Access Plan, similar to guidance by other Federal agencies. 23 Consumer advocacy organizations, financial institutions, and industry trade associations alike encourage the Bureau to provide more translated documents and notices.

Financial institutions and industry trade association commenters advocate for flexibility in serving LEP consumers, including allowing risk-based approaches to decision making related to the scope and support for non-English languages. These commenters explained that, because there are over 350 languages spoken in the United States, it would be unrealistic and cost-prohibitive for any financial institution to fulfill all the credit needs of all customers in all languages. In addition, industry representatives express uncertainty regarding how to prioritize one language over others and what factors may be considered when institutions seek to provide services in one or more languages. 24 Some industry groups also request clarity regarding marketing in non-English languages, including whether a disclosure describing the extent of services in that language is sufficient on its own to dispel risks that the practice would be considered an unfair, deceptive, or abusive practice. 25

A few trade associations also underscore the technical, operational, and compliance challenges specific to providing translated documents to LEP consumers. For example, the commenters point to the operational complexity of translating and disseminating documents and data through technology platforms designed to rely on standard English characters. 26 Moreover, if financial institutions do opt to translate documents, they cite uncertainty regarding which documents to translate, how to determine the accuracy of those translations, and how to defend the rationale for selecting particular forms or disclosures for translation. 27 As a result, some of these industry groups assert that providing verbal interpretation via telephone is a more effective short-term solution to improving services for LEP consumers.

In considering whether and how to offer services to LEP consumers in languages other than English, industry stakeholders express a willingness and desire to serve LEP consumers, but cite challenges related to balancing legal requirements and practical considerations, including resource and operational constraints. Specifically, these challenges arise in making:

(1) Language selection(s): Determining in which non-English language(s) to provide products and services; and

(2) Product and lifecycle selections: Deciding (a) which products and services to offer in non-English language(s), and (b) where in the product lifecycle to provide services in non-English language(s).

Industry and trade association stakeholders are particularly concerned about potential fair lending risks under ECOA regarding making and implementing decisions about language selection for non-English language services. These stakeholders are also concerned about potential UDAAP risks in determining how and in which languages to offer products and services, particularly where not all products and services are provided in languages other than English. Some of these groups request Bureau clarification that: (1) An inability to offer support in languages other than English, unless specifically required by law, does not violate ECOA or Regulation B, and/or (2) offering support in a specific non-English language and not in other non-English languages is not considered an unfair, deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory practice. These groups also encourage the Bureau to clarify that collecting consumers' language preference information does not violate the ECOA or Regulation B. 28

These legal issues create some uncertainty and can impose costs, which may inhibit some financial institutions from serving LEP consumers. 29 As a result, LEP consumers may not be able to easily access generally available credit, lower-priced credit, or creditor assistance (whether before or after credit is extended). The Bureau is issuing this Statement to assist financial institutions seeking to increase access to fair and nondiscriminatory credit for LEP consumers.

This Statement provides principles and guidelines to inform and assist financial institutions in their decision making related to serving LEP consumers. Section B.1 provides general principles for financial institutions to consider in serving LEP consumers in languages other than English. Section B.2 provides guidelines institutions can use to help implement those principles and develop compliance solutions, including key considerations to inform those decisions and specific information about common components of a compliance management system (CMS).

The Bureau encourages financial institutions to better serve LEP consumers while ensuring compliance with relevant Federal, State, and other legal requirements . 30 Industry stakeholders note that potential legal uncertainty discourages some financial institutions from serving LEP consumers in languages other than English. The Bureau has also spoken to many financial institutions that nevertheless choose to serve LEP consumers in myriad ways and to varying degrees. 31 The Bureau encourages institutions to better serve LEP consumers by applying the principles and guidelines in this Statement. The Bureau anticipates that if financial institutions do so, there will continue to be variations among financial institutions in the manner, and the extent to which, they provide products and services to LEP consumers.

Financial institutions that wish to implement pilot programs or other phased approaches for rolling out LEP-consumer-focused products and services may consider doing so in a manner consistent with the guidelines in section B.2 of this Statement . Phased approaches may allow financial institutions to serve LEP consumers incrementally while managing risks and taking steps to ensure compliance with appliable laws.

Financial institutions may consider developing a variety of compliance approaches related to the provision of products and services to LEP consumers consistent with the guidelines in section B.2 of this Statement. Factors relevant in the compliance context may vary depending on the size, complexity, and risk profile of an institution . 32 Therefore, differences in financial institutions and the ways they choose to serve LEP consumers will likely require different compliance solutions.

Financial institutions may mitigate certain compliance risks by providing LEP consumers with clear and timely disclosures in non-English languages describing the extent and limits of any language services provided throughout the product lifecycle . 33 In those disclosures, financial institutions may provide information about the level of non-English language support as well as communication channels through which LEP consumers can obtain additional information and ask questions.

Financial institutions may wish to consider extending credit pursuant to a legally compliant special purpose credit program (SPCP) to increase access to credit for certain underserved LEP consumers. Regulation B, which implements the ECOA, sets forth standards and general rules for SPCPs . 34 By permitting the consideration of a prohibited basis such as race or national origin in connection with an SPCP, ECOA and Regulation B provide creditors with a tool to help meet the credit needs of underserved communities. The Bureau recently issued an advisory opinion to provide stakeholders with guidance concerning how to develop and implement an SPCP. 35 While SPCPs are a useful tool to further that goal, financial institutions may responsibly serve LEP consumers without the use of SPCPs.

Financial institutions may use the following key considerations and CMS guidelines to mitigate ECOA, UDAAP, and other legal risks when making threshold determinations and other decisions related to serving LEP consumers in languages other than English. 36

In determining whether to provide non-English language services to LEP consumers and in which language(s), financial institutions may consider documented and verifiable information ( e.g., the stated language preferences of its current customers  37 or U.S. Census Bureau demographic or language data  38 ). For example, the Bureau has previously noted that some nationwide institutions largely focus on serving Spanish-speaking consumers, while regional institutions typically align any language services with local demographics. 39

In determining which products and services to offer in languages other than English, financial institutions may consider a variety of factors, including the extent to which LEP consumers use particular products and the availability of non-English language services. 40

In determining when during the product lifecycle financial institutions can offer services in non-English languages and the extent of those services, financial institutions may consider activities and communications—whether verbal or written—that most significantly impact consumers. To determine whether a verbal or written communication is one that significantly impacts consumers, financial institutions may consider whether the communication conveys essential information about credit terms and conditions ( e.g., loan pricing), or about borrower obligations and rights, including those related to delinquency and default servicing, loss mitigation, and debt collection. Financial institutions may also consider existing customer data on what services LEP consumers use most frequently. 41

In making product and service selections, financial institutions should review relevant policies, procedures, and practices for features that may pose heightened risk of unlawful discrimination, including distinctions in product offerings or terms related to prohibited bases ( e.g., national origin, age) or proxies for prohibited bases ( e.g., geography). 42

Financial institutions may collect and track customer language information in a variety of ways to facilitate communication with LEP consumers in non-English languages. 43 For example, in 2017, the Bureau issued an official approval of the final redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA) that was to include a question to collect mortgage applicants' language preference. 44 Although the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later opted to remove the language preference question from the URLA, the Bureau has not rescinded the approval, which confirms that financial institutions' use of the URLA containing the question identifying a mortgage applicant's language preference does not violate Regulation B sections 1002.5(b)—(d) or the ECOA. 45 The Bureau specifically reviewed the language preference question with respect to Regulation B, section 1002.5(b) concerning requests for information about national origin and determined it to be compliant. Financial institutions can use similar questions to collect customer language preference information outside of the mortgage context. Financial institutions do not violate the ECOA or Regulation B when they collect the language preference of an applicant or borrower in a credit transaction.

However, financial institutions should ensure that information collected about a consumer's language preference is not used in a way that violates applicable laws. For example, the Bureau has brought enforcement actions against institutions for violations that resulted, at least in part, from the exclusion of consumers with non-English language preferences from offers provided to similarly situated consumers without those language preferences. 46 Financial institutions choosing to collect and track customer language preferences should consider closely monitoring how that information is used within the institution to ensure compliance with applicable laws. 47

Financial institutions must adhere to Federal and State laws requiring that they provide consumers with translated documents under certain circumstances. 48 Nothing in this Statement alters the applicability of those requirements.

If the translation of documents is not legally mandated, financial institutions may assess whether and to what extent to provide translated documents to consumers. Financial institutions may conduct these assessments and document the related decisions consistent with the guidelines provided in section B.2.b.i. Financial institutions that choose to provide translated documents to LEP consumers, must ensure the accuracy of those translations  49 and should seek to prioritize communications and activities that most significantly impact consumers. 50

In addition, financial institutions may wish to use translated documents provided by the Bureau and other government agencies. 51 Links to the Bureau's LEP-related resources, including glossaries of financial terms, can be found on its website. 52 The Bureau is committed to continuing to provide more translated documents in the future.

Financial institutions can mitigate fair lending and other risks associated with providing services in languages other than English by implementing a strong compliance management system that affirmatively considers how to serve LEP consumers in a compliant manner. Financial institutions serving LEP consumers may: (1) Develop an LEP-specific CMS, or (2) integrate an LEP focus into the financial institution's broader fair lending, UDAAP, and/or consumer compliance CMS. To be most effective, the CMS coverage should be comprehensive and commensurate with the financial institution's size, complexity, and risk profile. 53

Common features of a well-developed CMS include: A compliance program ( i.e., policies and procedures, training, monitoring and/or audit, and consumer complaint response) and third-party service provider oversight. 54 In the fair lending context, financial institutions should consider an in-depth review of policies and procedures for products containing features that may pose heightened risk of unlawful discrimination. 55 The following subsections provide specific detail about components that can be included (or refined if existing) in a financial institution's CMS to mitigate fair lending and other risks associated with providing products and services in non-English languages.

A well-developed CMS will sufficiently document applicable policies, procedures, and decision making. 56 The Bureau strongly encourages financial institutions providing products and services in non-English languages to document decisions related to the selection of: (1) Language(s), (2) product(s), and (3) service(s). 57 Documentation may include anything that a financial institution considers in making the language(s), product(s), or service(s) decision, including infrastructure, systems, or other operational limitations; cost estimates; or any other information that allows a regulator to understand the decision-making process.

For example, that documentation may include any information that the financial institution considered in selecting a particular language or languages in which to serve LEP consumers ( e.g., the stated language preferences of its current customers  58 or U.S. Census Bureau demographic or language data  59 ). In addition, the documentation may include the reasons for selecting particular products and services, including the extent of non-English language communications and other customer support resources. The documentation may also include the financial institution's plan to phase-in additional languages, products, or services over time.

Financial institutions seeking to expand language, product, and/or service offerings, may document the existing offerings and decisions related to expanded offerings. In determining whether to expand or discontinue particular products or services, financial institutions may consider documenting the extent of consumer use (or lack thereof) of those product and service offerings.

Common features of a well-developed CMS include quality assurance testing and monitoring of business transactions and processes. 60 The Bureau encourages financial institutions providing services in languages other than English to regularly monitor those services, including changes in those services, for fair lending and UDAAP risks. 61 For example, financial institutions should consider assessing the quality of customer assistance provided in non-English languages, including by assessing whether personnel receive the same training, convey the same information, and have the same authority as other customer service personnel. 62

In addition, financial institutions should consider monitoring or conducting regular fair lending and UDAAP-related assessments of their advertising, including promotional materials and marketing scripts for new products. 63 If institutions market products to particular populations, including LEP consumers, they should consider the nature and extent of that marketing and whether any particular populations are missing or excluded. 64 Furthermore, institutions should consider reviewing new products, as well as changes in the terms and conditions of existing products, for potential UDAAP concerns to determine whether their internal controls are adequate.

Financial institutions should also ensure that marketing, disclosures, and other materials are appropriately designed to ensure accurate understanding by LEP consumers. 65 In 2013, the Bureau brought an enforcement action against a financial institution for illegal credit card practices, including deceptive marketing with respect to credit card “add-on products” ( i.e., payment protection and credit monitoring). 66 While sales calls to enroll the vast majority of Puerto Rico consumers in this product were conducted in Spanish, the institution did not provide uniform Spanish-language scripts for these enrollment calls, and all written materials provided to consumers were in English. 67

Common features of a well-developed CMS include regular statistical analysis of loan-level data for potential disparities on a prohibited basis ( e.g., national origin) in underwriting, pricing, or other aspects of the credit transaction, including in mortgage and non-mortgage products ( e.g., credit cards, auto lending, small business lending, and student lending). 68

If a financial institution contracts with service providers to offer any products or services to LEP consumers on behalf of the financial institution, it should ensure that the products and services provided to LEP consumers do not violate applicable laws or pose fair lending or UDAAP risks to LEP consumers. 69 Those financial institutions should implement a service provider oversight program that incorporates a review of fair lending, UDAAP, and other applicable laws. 70 While third-parties may offer a host of essential products and services to LEP consumers, some of which are provided in languages other than English, 71 financial institutions' service provider oversight programs should consider focusing particular attention on third parties who participate in underwriting or pricing decisions. 72

Recognizing the compliance risks and uncertainty that many financial institutions raise as challenges to better serving LEP consumers in non-English languages, the Bureau is issuing this Statement to outline compliance principles and guidelines that encourage financial institutions to expand access to products and services for LEP consumers.

Nothing in this Statement should be interpreted to relieve institutions from their obligation to comply with laws applicable to providing financial products and services to LEP consumers. Nor does this Statement mandate any particular approach to serving LEP consumers. 73

The Director of the Bureau, Kathleen L. Kraninger, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Grace Feola, a Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

NACIQI's Statutory Authority and Function: NACIQI is established under section 114 of the HEA. NACIQI advises the Secretary of Education with respect to:

• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2, part H, Title IV of the HEA, as amended.

• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations.

• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.

• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA and part C, subchapter I, chapter 34, Title 42, together with recommendations for improvement in such process.

• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.

• Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.

Link to the Senior Department Official's Decision Letters: After NACIQI made its recognition recommendations to the SDO, pursuant to 34 Code of Federal Regulations CFR 602.34(g), each agency and the Department staff had the opportunity to submit comments on NACIQI's recommendations to the SDO pursuant to 34 CFR 602.35. There was a separate SDO for the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). The SDO for HLC issued his decision on October 26, 2020. The SDO for all other agencies issued her decisions on October 28, 2020. A link to all the SDO decision letters, as well as a list of all the agencies reviewed at the July 29-30, 2020 NACIQI meeting, are provided below. None of the agencies reviewed chose to appeal the SDO Decisions to the Secretary pursuant to 34 CFR 602.37(a). https://surveys.ope.ed.gov/erecognition/PublicDocuments .

Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs.

1. New York State Board of Regents, State Education Department, Office of the Professions (Nursing Education).

2. Missouri State Board of Nursing.

1. National Intelligence University: Undergoing Substantive Change (Reorganization/Command Change).

2. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College: Undergoing Substantive Change (Curriculum Change).

Agency Under Review and Evaluation during its period of recognition by the Department's Office of Postsecondary Education Accreditation Group, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 34 CFR 602.33.

Higher Learning Commission (HLC).

Access to Records of the Meeting: The official report of the July 29 & 30, 2020 meeting is posted on the NACIQI website. In addition, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), at 5 U.S.C. App. 10(b), the public may request to inspect records of the meeting at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC, by emailing aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov or by calling (202) 453-7415 to schedule an appointment.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Example Application for the Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools Program.

OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20,000.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 40,000.

Abstract: The Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools program is a reservation of funds under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSA Act) to provide services or assistance to non-public schools. Under the EANS program, we will award grants by formula to each Governor with an approved Certification and Agreement to provide services or assistance to eligible non-public schools to address the impact that the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had, and continues to have, on non-public school students and teachers in the State. The CRRSA Act requires that State's collect applications from non-public schools in order to award these funds. This request is being made to allow the distribution of an example application States can use to collect the needed information from eligible non-public schools. States are not required to use this application and may create their own.

Additional Information: An emergency clearance approval for the use of the system is described below due to the following conditions:

• The Department of Education (Department) requests that the following collection of information, the example application for the Emergency Assistance to Non Public Schools (EANS) Program under section 312(d) of the CRRSA Act, Public Law 116-260, be processed in accordance with section 1320.13 emergency processing of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Section 312(d)(3) of the CRRSA Act requires that any State educational agency receiving funds to provide services or assistance to non-public schools shall make an application for those services available to non-public schools no later than 30 days after the receipt of such funds. The Department announced the availability of the EANS funds on January 8, 2021 and will be awarding funds no later than 15 days after receipt of a Governor's application.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Work Colleges Application and Agreement.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0153.

Type of Review: An extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20.

Abstract: The Higher Education Opportunity Act, Public Law 110-315 includes provisions for the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, in section 448 that promotes the use of comprehensive work-learning-service programs as a valuable education approach when it is an integral part of the institution's education program and a part of a financial plan which decreases reliance on grants and loans. The Work Colleges Application and Agreement form is the tool for an institution to apply for participation in this program. The data will be used by the Department to assess an institution's preparedness to participate in this program and as a signed agreement to comply with all requirements for participating in the program. The data is used in conjunction with institutional program reviews to assess the administrative capability and compliance of the applicant.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Work Colleges Expenditure Report.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0152.

Type of Review: An extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20.

Abstract: The Higher Education Opportunity Act, Public Law 110-315 includes provisions for the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, in section 448 that promotes the use of comprehensive work-learning-service programs as a valuable education approach when it is an integral part of the institution's education program and a part of a financial plan which decreases reliance on grants and loans. Work Colleges participants are required to report expenditure of funds annually. The data collected is in this report is used by the Department to monitor program effectiveness and accountability of fund expenditures. The data is used in conjunction with institutional program reviews to assess the administrative capability and compliance of the applicant. There are no other resources for collecting this data.

The DOE HEP and NASA APD and BPS program offices request information in the three (3) focused areas described below in which cooperation or partnerships between DOE and NASA can further scientific advances. The objective of the RFI is to gather information about these focused areas, including scientific and technology benefits and obstacles, how it will make use of each agency's capabilities, infrastructure and resources, and other pertinent information.

The information received in response to this RFI will inform and be considered by the DOE and NASA program offices regarding the potential development of partnerships and collaborative activities.

Please note that this RFI is not a Funding Opportunity Announcement, a Request for Proposals, or any other form of solicitation or bid of DOE or NASA to fund potential research and development work.

The radio quiet environment of the Moon's far side offers the potential for deployment of sensitive radio telescopes or sensors to explore the early eras of the universe or to test the standard cosmological model. Information from the community is requested for near term contributions or partnerships on planned and future lunar surface missions; longer term efforts on a future NASA lunar ground station, a lunar orbiting radio telescope, or lunar ground-based far side observatory are also of interest. Development of such a mission or observatory will be dependent on the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey study (“Astro2020”), which is expected to report to the agencies in spring 2021. Particular areas of interest include sensor technology demonstrations and precursor or early science investigations as well as fully developed scientific studies on future missions.

Information is requested pertaining to the following specific questions:

a. What are key science topics aligned with HEP and/or APD science drivers which may significantly advance scientific knowledge using a lunar far side or orbiting observatory. What are the opportunities and challenges to make progress on these topics? Would the efforts to achieve these compelling science goals best be done on a lunar surface or an orbital platform?

b. Are precursor scientific measurements or demonstrations needed before lunar ground or orbiting platforms can be used, or will need to be used, to achieve the compelling science goals?

c. What key obstacles, impediments, or bottlenecks are there to advancing the scientific research?

d. What are existing or near-term technology capabilities available in HEP and/or APD that can be used to advance these key science goals on lunar surface missions currently being developed? What longer term technology development is needed for future missions?

e. Are precursor technology developments or demonstrations needed before lunar ground or orbiting platforms would be effective?

f. What key obstacles, impediments, or bottlenecks are there to advancing the technology development?

g. What cooperation or partnerships between DOE and NASA could further the scientific and technology advances?

h. What mix of institutions or collaboration models could best carry out the envisioned research and/or development?

i. What resources, capabilities and infrastructure at DOE National Laboratories or the NASA Centers (including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)) would be beneficial for and could accelerate or facilitate research in this topic?

j. Are there other factors, not addressed by the questions above, which should be considered in planning HEP and APD activities in this subject area?

The International Space Station (ISS) provides a unique platform for space-based probes of fundamental physics in a microgravity environment. Example topics include the search for dark matter and dark energy, the direct detection of gravitational waves, and the test of the equivalence principle. Information from the community is requested regarding developing and carrying out small experiments on the ISS in areas of fundamental physics that are aligned with or are closely related to the science goals of HEP, APD, and/or BPS. Experiments on the ISS that make use of quantum sensor technologies and capabilities in the HEP, APD, or BPS community are of particular interest.

Information is requested pertaining to the following specific questions:

a. Key science topics aligned with HEP, APD, and/or BPS science drivers which may significantly advance scientific knowledge using the ISS platform. What are the opportunities and challenges to make progress on these topics?

b. Are precursor scientific measurements or demonstrations needed before the ISS platform can be used, or needs to be used, to achieve the compelling science goals?

c. What key obstacles, impediments, or bottlenecks are there to advancing the scientific research?

d. What are existing or near-term technology capabilities available in HEP, APD, or BPS that can be used to advance these key science goals? What longer term technology development is need for future missions?

e. How can quantum sensor technologies be used to carry out this science, with particular interest in applications unique to the microgravity environment?

f. Are precursor technology developments or demonstrations needed before the ISS platform would be effective?

g. What are key obstacles, impediments, or bottlenecks to advancing the technology development?

h. What cooperation or partnerships between DOE and NASA could further the scientific and technology advances?

i. What mix of institutions or collaboration models could best carry out the envisioned research and/or development?

j. What resources, capabilities and infrastructure at DOE National Laboratories or the NASA Centers (including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)) would be beneficial for and could accelerate or facilitate research in this topic?

k. Are there other factors, not addressed by the questions above, which should be considered in planning HEP, APD or BPS activities in this subject area?

DOE is partnering with NSF on the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, which is expected to start operations in Chile in FY2023. The study of the nature of dark energy is the primary science goal aligned with HEP. NASA is developing the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, planned for launch in 2026, and is partnering with the European Space Agency on the Euclid mission, planned for launch in 2022. Both these space missions have the study of the nature of dark energy as a priority science driver. The data from each is also of interest to the wider astronomy community for many additional scientific studies.

Due to the complementary and synergistic capabilities and data, the scientific community expects to carry out dark energy investigations using all 3 sets of data. Information from the community is requested regarding efforts that will enhance or extend the science reach provided by these observatories when considered together, including development of a common library of simulations and/or capabilities to enable joint processing and analysis of the data.

Information is requested pertaining to the following specific questions:

a. What are the key dark energy science areas that will be enhanced by these activities? What level of scientific enhancement is expected by carrying them out after the datasets are public? What additional enhancements are expected if plans are put in place in the near term to enable joint data processing and analysis of public data sets?

b. What is the scope of work required, as well as the opportunities and costs?

c. What are key obstacles, impediments, or bottlenecks to advancing development of these plans?

d. Are there other science topics besides dark energy that drive the requirements for joint data processing or analysis?

k. What cooperation or partnerships between DOE and NASA could further the scientific and technology advances?

l. What mix of institutions or collaboration models could best carry out the envisioned research and/or development?

m. What resources, capabilities and infrastructure at DOE National Laboratories or the NASA Centers (including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)) would be beneficial for and could accelerate or facilitate research in this topic?

n. Are there other factors, not addressed by the questions above, which should be considered in planning HEP and APD activities in this subject area?

Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Note that comments will be made publicly available as submitted. Any information that may be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should be submitted as described below.

Confidential Business Information: Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Both DOE and NASA will make their own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE and NASA when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 14, 2021, by Chris Fall, Director for the Office of Science, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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 responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: The EPA uses contractors to perform services throughout the nation with regard to environmental emergencies involving the release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials, or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment. The Agency may request contractors responding to any of these types of incidents to conduct background checks and apply Government-established suitability criteria in Title 5 CFR Administrative Personnel 731.104 Appointments Subject to Investigation, 732.201 Sensitivity Level Designations and Investigative Requirements, and 736.102 Notice to Investigative Sources when determining whether employees are acceptable to perform on given sites or on specific projects. In addition to emergency response contractors, EPA may require background checks for contractor personnel working in sensitive sites or sensitive projects. The background checks and application of the Government's suitability criteria must be completed prior to contract employee performance. The contractor shall maintain records associated with all background checks. Background checks cover citizenship or valid visa status, criminal convictions, weapons offenses, felony convictions, and parties prohibited from receiving federal contracts.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Private Contractors.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain a benefit per Title 5 CFR Administrative Personnel 731.104 Appointments Subject to Investigation, 732.201 Sensitivity Level Designations and Investigative Requirements, and 736.102 Notice to Investigative Sources.

Estimated number of respondents: 1,000 (total).

Frequency of response: Annual.

Total estimated burden: 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $208,720 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is no change in the hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations to EPA's Office of Research and Development on technical and management issues of its research programs. The meeting agenda and materials will be posted to https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: review the HS and SSWR draft reports.

Information on Services Available: For information on translation services, access, or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy at (202) 564-6518 or tracy.tom@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy at least ten days prior to the meeting to give the EPA adequate time to process your request.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to persons who are or may be interested in risk evaluations of chemical substances under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Since other entities may also be interested in this final risk evaluation, the EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to “determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k). TSCA section 6(i) directs that a determination of “no unreasonable risk” shall be issued by order and considered to be a final Agency action, while a determination of “unreasonable risk” is not considered to be a final Agency action. 15 U.S.C. 2605(i).

The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through (v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).

The statute requires that the risk evaluation process be completed within a specified timeframe and provide an opportunity for public comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to publishing a final risk evaluation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4).

Subsection 5.4.1 of the final risk evaluation for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 constitutes the order required under TSCA section 6(i)(1), and the “no unreasonable risk” determinations in that subsection are considered to be a final Agency action effective on the date of issuance of the order. In conducting risk evaluations, “EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of use within the scope of the risk evaluation . . . .” 40 CFR 702.47. Under EPA's implementing regulations, “[a] determination by EPA that the chemical substance, under one or more of the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation, does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment will be issued by order and considered to be a final Agency action, effective on the date of issuance of the order.” 40 CFR 702.49(d). For purposes of TSCA section 19(a)(1)(A), the date of issuance of the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 shall be at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time (standard or daylight, as appropriate) on the date that is two weeks after the date when this notice is published in the Federal Register , which is in accordance with 40 CFR 23.5.

EPA is announcing the availability of the risk evaluation of the chemical substance identified in Unit II. In this risk evaluation EPA has made unreasonable risk determinations on some of the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation for this chemical. For those conditions of use for which EPA has found an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA must initiate regulatory action to address those risks through risk management measures enumerated in 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).

EPA also is announcing the availability of the information required to be provided publicly with each risk evaluation, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets identified. 40 CFR 702.51. Specifically, EPA has provided:

• The scope document and problem formulation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0725);

• Draft risk evaluation, revised draft risk evaluation and final risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604);

• All notices, determinations, findings, consent agreements, and orders (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604);

• Any information required to be provided to the Agency under 15 U.S.C. 2603 (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0725 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604);

• A nontechnical summary of the risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604);

• A list of the studies, with the results of the studies, considered in carrying out each risk evaluation (Risk Evaluation for C.I. Pigment Violet 29) in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604);

• The final peer review report, including the response to peer review and public comments received during peer review (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604); and

• Response to public comments received on the draft scope, the draft risk evaluation and revised draft risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604).

The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing chemical process under TSCA, following prioritization and before risk management. As this chemical is one of the first ten chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation, the chemical substance was not required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927, December 19, 2016) (FRL-9956-47). The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate both hazard and exposure, not consider costs or other nonrisk factors, use reasonably available information and approaches in a manner that is consistent with the requirements in TSCA for the use of the best available science, and ensure decisions are based on the weight of the scientific evidence.

The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702 and summarized on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule on procedures for risk evaluation (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-38), the specific regulatory process set out in 40 CFR part 702, subpart B will be followed for the first ten chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation to the maximum extent practicable.

Prior to the publication of this final risk evaluation, a draft risk evaluation and a revised draft risk evaluation were subject to peer review and public comment. EPA reviewed the peer review reports from the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), a Letter Peer Review, and public comments and has supplemented the risk evaluation in response to these comments as appropriate. Prior to the publication of the draft risk evaluation, EPA made available the scope and problem formulation, and solicited public input on uses and exposure. EPA's documents, the peer review report, and the public comments are in Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604 at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, information about the scope, problem formulation, and draft risk evaluation phases of the TSCA risk evaluation for this chemical is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-pigment-violet-29-anthra219-def6510.

C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-d′e′f′] diisoquinoline-1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone) is a perylene derivative used to color materials and as an intermediate for other perylene pigments. C.I. Pigment Violet 29 is currently manufactured (including imported), processed, distributed, used, and disposed of as part of industrial, commercial, and consumer conditions of use. Leading applications for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 include use as an intermediate to create or adjust color of other perylene pigments, incorporation into paints and coatings used primarily in the automobile industry, incorporation into plastic and rubber products used primarily in automobiles and industrial carpeting, use in merchant ink for commercial printing, and use in consumer watercolors and artistic color.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations to EPA's Office of Research and Development on technical and management issues of its research programs. The meeting agenda and materials will be posted to https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: Science for air quality decisions and next generation methods—wildfire focus.

Information on Services Available: For information on translation services, access, or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy at (202) 564-6518 or tracy.tom@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy at least ten days prior to the meeting to give the EPA adequate time to process your request.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations to EPA's Office of Research and Development on technical and management issues of its research programs. Meeting agendas and materials will be posted to https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: Recent progress and activities for HTT, REMD, VTM and AOP progress on the CSS StRAP.

Information on Services Available: For information on translation services, access, or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy at (202) 564-6518 or tracy.tom@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy at least ten days prior to the meeting to give the EPA adequate time to process your request.

The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App.2 section 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to be used for regulatory purposes.

Meeting access: These meetings will be open to the public. The full agenda with access information and meeting materials will be available seven calendar days prior to the start of each meeting at the HSRB website: https://www.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

For questions on document availability, or if you do not have access to the internet, consult with the DFO, Thomas O'Farrell, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Special Accommodations. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in these meetings by following the instructions in this section.

1. Oral comments . To pre-register to make oral comments, please contact the DFO, Thomas O'Farrell, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Requests to present oral comments during the meetings will be accepted up to Noon Eastern Time, seven calendar days prior to each meeting date. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the HSRB Chair to present oral comments during the meetings at the designated time on the agenda. Oral comments before the HSRB are generally limited to five minutes per individual or organization. If additional time is available, further public comments may be possible.

2. Written comments . For the Board to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates, you should submit your comments prior to the meetings via email by Noon Eastern Time, seven calendar days prior to each meeting date. If you submit comments after these dates, those comments will be provided to the HSRB members, but you should recognize that the HSRB members may not have adequate time to consider your comments prior to their discussion. You should submit your comments to the DFO, Thomas O'Farrell listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

Topics for discussion . The agenda and meeting materials will be available seven calendar days in advance of each meeting at https://www.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

Meeting minutes and final reports . Minutes of these meetings, summarizing the topics discussed and recommendations made by the HSRB, will be released within 90 calendar days of each meeting. These minutes will be available at https://www.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board. In addition, information regarding the HSRB's Final Reports, will be found at https://www.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board or can be requested from Thomas O'Farrell listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

OMB Control Number: 3060-0298.

Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than the Tariff Review Plan).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,925 respondents; 9,585 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-50 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial, and one-time reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151-155, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502 and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 244,477 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,584,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe are confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: On October 9, 2020, the Commission released the 8YY (toll free) Access Charge Reform Order, FCC 20-143, that transitions intercarrier compensation for toll free services either to lower, uniform rate caps or to bill-and-keep over approximately three years as a means of curtailing abuse of the 8YY intercarrier compensation regime. The Order requires price cap and rate-of-return carriers to establish separate rate elements for certain interstate and intrastate toll free and non-toll free services. Carriers are also required to lower their 8YY database query charges over three years, and are prohibited from charging for more than one query per call. Competitive LECs assessing a tariffed intrastate or interstate Toll Free Database Query Charge must cap such charges and revise their tariffs to ensure that those charges do not exceed the rates charged by the competing incumbent LEC.

The information collected through carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable, as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.

Committee Renewal: After consultation with the General Services Administration, the Commission renewed the charter on December 17, 2020 providing the Committee with authorization to operate for two years.

The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission on the full range of disability access topics specified by the Commission and to facilitate the participation of consumers with disabilities in proceedings before the Commission. In addition, this Committee is intended to provide an effective means for stakeholders with interests in this area, including consumers with disabilities, to exchange ideas, which will in turn enhance the Commission's ability to effectively address disability access issues relevant to matters under its purview.

The Committee is organized under, and operates in accordance with, the provisions of the FACA (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The Committee will be solely advisory in nature. Consistent with FACA and its requirements, each meeting of the Committee will be open to the public unless otherwise noticed. A notice of each meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the meeting. Records will be maintained of each meeting and made available for public inspection. All activities of the Committee will be conducted in an open, transparent, and accessible manner. The Committee shall terminate two years from the date that this renewal is effective (on or before December 17, 2022), or earlier upon the completion of its work as determined by the Chairman, unless its charter is renewed prior to the termination date.

During the Committee's fourth term, it is anticipated that the Committee will meet, either in-person in Washington, DC or, if appropriate, by teleconference, for at least three (3) one-day meetings.

In addition, as needed, working groups or subcommittees (ad hoc or steering) will be established to facilitate the Committee's work between meetings of the full Committee. All meetings, including those of working groups and subcommittees, will be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.

First Meeting: The February 18, 2021 meeting is open to members of the general public. The meeting will be webcast with American Sign Language interpreters and open captioning at: www.fcc.gov/ live. In addition, a reserved amount of time will be available on the agenda for comments and inquiries from the public. Members of the public may comment or ask questions of presenters via the email address livequestions@fcc.gov.

Requests for other reasonable accommodations or for materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities should be submitted via email to: fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Requests should be made as early as possible; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.

Proposed Agenda: At this meeting, the Committee is expected to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Committee and its members; issues that the Committee will address; meeting schedules; and any other topics relevant to the Committee's work. The Committee may also receive briefings from Commission staff on issues of interest to the Committee and may discuss topics of interest to the committee, including, but not limited to, matters concerning communications transitions, telecommunications relay services, emergency access, and video programming accessibility.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1198.

Title: Section 90.525, Administration of Interoperability Channels; Section 90.529, State Licenses; and Section 90.531, Band Plan.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: State, local or tribal government, and Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,230 respondents; 2,230 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour-2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting and one-time reporting requirements; third party disclosure.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), unless otherwise noted.

Total Annual Burden: 2,230 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: Section 90.525 of the Commission's rules requires approval of license applications for Interoperability channels in the 769-775 MHz and 799-805 MHz frequency bands by state-level agency or organization responsible for administering emergency communications. Section 90.529 of the Commission's rules provides that each state license will be granted subject to the condition that the state certifies on or before each applicable benchmark date that it is providing or prepared to provide “substantial service.” Section 90.531 of the Commission's rules sets forth the band plan for the 769 -775 MHz and 799-805 MHz public safety bands. This section covers channel designations for base and mobile use, narrowband segments, combined channels, channel pairing, internal guard band, and broadband. Narrowband general use channels, including the former narrowband reserve channels, and low power channels require regional planning committee concurrence and narrowband air-ground channels require state or regional planning committee concurrence.

Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses for interoperability and General Use channels, as well as renewal of State licenses. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate State interoperability or regional planning requirements or provide for the efficient use of State frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of 700 MHz band systems to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

A copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) OMB submission, including the reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, if approved. These documents will also be made available on the Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above.

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.

Report title: Treasury Securities and Agency Debt and Mortgage-Backed Securities Reporting Requirements.

Agency form number: FR 2956.

OMB control number: 7100-NEW.

Frequency: Daily.

Respondents: Depository institutions that meet the reporting thresholds and daily transact in trading of marketable U.S. Treasury securities and the trading of the debt and mortgage-backed securities issued by agencies.

Estimated number of respondents: Treasury securities, 10; Agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, 12.

Estimated average hours per response: 3.

Estimated annual burden hours: 16,500.

General description of report: The proposed FR 2956 would collect detailed data on depository institutions' daily transactions of marketable U.S. Treasury securities and of the debt and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by U.S. federal government agencies including government-sponsored enterprises (agencies). The report would have two parts: Part 1 would collect data on transactions in U.S. Treasury debt, and Part 2 would collect transactions in debt and MBS issued by agencies. Depository institutions subject to reporting under Parts 1 and 2 of the FR 2956 collection would be required to report all the transaction details, information, and fields as described in the applicable Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) technical documentation, FAQs, and guides located at https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/trace/documentation. This information would include, but is not limited to, the Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (CUSIP) number or similar identifier, the transaction size (volume), price of the transaction, date of trade execution, time of execution, and date of settlement. The Board is proposing to implement the FR 2956 in 2021.

Every national bank, state member bank, state non-member bank, savings association, or U.S. branch and agency of a foreign bank filing a Notice of Government Securities Broker or Government Dealer Activities Form (From G-FIN; OMB No. 7100-0224) with average daily transaction volumes of over $100 million, for U.S. Treasury debt, or over $50 million, for agency-issued debt and MBS, during the prior fiscal year would be subject to the proposed reporting requirements. Depository institutions subject to the reporting requirements of the proposed FR 2956 would electronically report transactions through the Board's data collection vendor, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), utilizing its Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE).

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR 2956 is authorized by sections 2A and 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”). Section 2A of the FRA requires that the Board and the FOMC maintain long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Section 11 of the FRA authorizes the Board to require reports from depository institutions as it may deem necessary and authorizes the Board to prescribe reports of liabilities and assets from insured depository institutions to enable the Board to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control monetary and credit aggregates. The obligation to respond to the FR 2956 would be mandatory. The information collected through the FR 2956 would not be considered confidential.

Consultation outside the agency: As part of an interagency workgroup, the Board has consulted with the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity and Futures Trading Commission, and FINRA on this collection.

Title: Amplifier Rule, 16 CFR part 432.

OMB Control Number: 3084-0105.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Estimated Annual Hours of Burden: 450 hours (300 testing-related hours; 150 disclosure-related hours).

Likely Respondents and Estimated Burden:

(a) Testing—High fidelity manufacturers—300 new products/year × 1 hour each = 300 hours; and

(b) Disclosures—High fidelity manufacturers—[(300 new products/year × 1 specification sheet) + (300 new products/year × 1 brochure)] × 15 minutes per specification sheet or brochure = 150 hours.

Frequency of Response: Periodic.

Estimated Annual Labor Cost: $26,130 per year ($15,897 for testing + $10,233 for disclosures).

Abstract: The Amplifier Rule assists consumers by standardizing the measurement and disclosure of power output and other performance characteristics of amplifiers in stereos and other home entertainment equipment. The Rule also specifies the test conditions necessary to make the disclosures that the Rule requires.

On November 2, 2020, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 85 FR 69331. The Commission received no germane comments. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule.

Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

This Notice and Order prohibit the introduction into the United States of any aircraft passenger departing from any foreign country unless the passenger: (1) Has a negative pre-departure test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (Qualifying Test); or (2) written or electronic documentation of recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in the form of a positive viral test result and a letter from a licensed health care provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel (Documentation of Recovery). The negative pre-departure test must be a viral test that was conducted on a specimen collected during the 3 calendar days preceding the flight's departure from a foreign country (Qualifying Test). Alternatively, if the passenger has recovered from COVID-19, the passenger may instead travel with written or electronic documentation of a positive viral test result that confirms previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a letter from a licensed health care provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel (Documentation of Recovery). A passenger must retain written or electronic documentation reflecting the negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery presented to the airline or other aircraft operator. A passenger must also produce such Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery upon request to any U.S. government official or a cooperating state or local public health authority.

This Notice and Order constitute a controlled free pratique to any airline or other aircraft operator with an aircraft arriving into the United States. Pursuant to this controlled free pratique, the airline or other aircraft operator must comply with the following conditions to receive permission for the aircraft to enter and disembark passengers in the United States:

• Airline or other aircraft operator must verify that every passenger—2 years of age or older—onboard the aircraft has attested to receiving a negative Qualifying Test result or to having recovered from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and being cleared to travel by a licensed health care provider or public health official.

• Airline or other aircraft operator must confirm that every passenger onboard the aircraft has documentation of a negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19.

This Order establishes requirements for (1) airlines arriving into the United States from any foreign country and (2) passengers departing any foreign country with a final destination in the United States.

A copy of the Order and Attachment A are provided below and a copy of the signed order can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/fr-proof-negative-test.html.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 71.20 and as set forth in greater detail below, this Notice and Order prohibit the introduction into the United States of any aircraft passenger departing from any foreign country unless the passenger: (1) Has a negative pre-departure test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (Qualifying Test); or (2) written or electronic documentation of recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in the form of a positive viral test result and a letter from a licensed health care provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel (Documentation of Recovery).

The negative pre-departure test must be a viral test that was conducted on a specimen collected during the 3 calendar days preceding the flight's departure from a foreign country (Qualifying Test). Alternatively, if the passenger has recovered from COVID-19, the passenger may instead travel with written or electronic documentation of a positive viral test result that confirms previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a letter from a licensed health care provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel (Documentation of Recovery). A passenger must retain written or electronic documentation reflecting the negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery presented to the airline or other aircraft operator. A passenger must also produce such Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery upon request to any U.S. government official or a cooperating state or local public health authority.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 71.31(b) and as set forth in greater detail below, this Notice and Order constitute a controlled free pratique to any airline or other aircraft operator with an aircraft arriving into the United States. Pursuant to this controlled free pratique, the airline or other aircraft operator must comply with the following conditions to receive permission for the aircraft to enter and disembark passengers in the United States:

• Airline or other aircraft operator must verify that every passenger—2 years of age or older—onboard the aircraft has attested to receiving a negative Qualifying Test result or to having recovered from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and being cleared to travel by a licensed health care provider or public health official.

• Airline or other aircraft operator must confirm that every passenger onboard the aircraft has documentation of a negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19.

This Order shall be interpreted and implemented to achieve the following paramount objectives:

• Preservation of human life;

• Preventing the further introduction, transmission, and spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the United States, including new virus variants;

• Preserving the health and safety of crew members, passengers, airport personnel, and communities; and

• Preserving hospital, healthcare, and emergency response resources within the United States.

Aircraft shall have the same definition as under 42 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). “Aircraft” includes, but is not limited to, commercial, general aviation, and private aircraft destined for the United States from a foreign country.

Aircraft Operator means an individual or organization causing or authorizing the operation of an aircraft.

Airline shall have the same definition as under 42 CFR 71.1(b).

Attest/Attestation means having completed the attestation in Attachment A. Such attestation may be completed in written or electronic form. The attestation is a statement, writing, entry, or other representation under 18 U.S.C. 1001. 2

Confirm that every passenger onboard the aircraft has documentation reflecting a negative Qualifying Test result means confirmation that:

(1) The personal identifiers ( e.g., name and date of birth) on the negative Qualifying Test result match the personal identifiers on the passenger's passport or other travel documents;

(2) if the passenger is arriving on a direct flight to the United States, the specimen was collected within the 3 calendar days preceding the flight's departure;

(3) if the passenger is arriving via one or more connecting flights, the specimen was collected within the 3 calendar days preceding the departure of the initial flight but only if

a. The connecting flights were booked as a single passenger record with a destination in the United States,

b. each connection is no longer than 24 hours, and

c. the airline or aircraft operator has instructed the passenger to comply—and uses reasonable efforts to facilitate compliance—with the safety protocols set forth in Runway to Recovery 1.1, December 21, 2020, available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/runway-recovery-11, during such connection(s);

(4) the test performed was a viral test (as defined below); and

(5) the test result states “NEGATIVE,” “SARS-CoV-2 RNA NOT DETECTED,” “SARS-CoV-2 ANTIGEN NOT DETECTED,” or “COVID-19 NOT DETECTED.” A test marked “invalid” is not acceptable.

Confirm that a passenger alternatively has written or electronic documentation of recovery from COVID-19 means confirmation that:

(1) The passenger has presented documentation of a positive test result and a signed letter on official letterhead that contains the name, address, and phone number of a licensed healthcare provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel;  3

(2) the positive test result occurred within the last three months (90 days) preceding the passenger's flight to the United States, or at such other intervals as specified in CDC guidance;

(3) the personal identifiers ( e.g., name and date of birth) on the positive test result and signed letter match the personal identifiers on the passenger's passport or other travel documents;

(4) the test performed was a viral test (as defined below); and

(5) the test result states “POSITIVE,” “SARS-CoV-2 RNA DETECTED,” “SARS-CoV-2 ANTIGEN DETECTED,” or “COVID-19 DETECTED.” A test marked “invalid” is not acceptable.

Foreign country means anywhere that is not a state, territory, or possession of the United States.

Negative Pre-departure Test Result for COVID-19 or negative Qualifying Test result means documentation of a negative COVID-19 test taken within the 3 calendar days preceding a flight's departure. Such documentation may be in paper or electronic format as required by this Order. Testing must be performed using a viral test. The documentation must also include sufficient verification information—such as the name and contact information for the laboratory or healthcare personnel who performed the test.

Viral test means a viral detection test for current infection ( i.e., a nucleic acid amplification test or a viral antigen test) approved or authorized by the relevant national authority for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

United States has the same meaning as “State” and “U.S. Territory” in 42 CFR 71.1(b).

The following categories of individuals and organizations are exempt from the requirements of this Order:

• Crew members of airlines or other aircraft operators provided that they follow industry standard protocols for the prevention of COVID-19 as set forth in relevant Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFOs) issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4

• Airlines or other aircraft operators transporting passengers with COVID-19 pursuant to CDC authorization and in accordance with CDC guidance.

• Federal law enforcement personnel while on official duty and carrying out a law enforcement function and members of the U.S. military (including aircraft operators), when traveling under competent orders—provided that the authority ordering the travel requires precautions to prevent the possible transmission of infection to others during the travel period in accordance with CDC guidance.

• Airlines or other aircraft operators granted specific waivers from the application of this Order based on CDC's determination that a foreign country lacks available SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity. Such waivers may be granted based on a specific request made by an airline or aircraft operator to the CDC and will be limited to 14 days unless renewed by CDC. 5

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread throughout the world. Individuals who travel may be at risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 before, during, and after travel. This could result in U.S.-bound travelers further spreading the virus to others during travel, upon arrival in the United States, and at their destinations.

Over the last few weeks, the United Kingdom (UK) has faced a rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in South East England, leading to enhanced epidemiological and virological investigations. On December 14, 2020, Public Health England announced that a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 had been identified across the southeast of England. 6 Preliminary analysis in the UK suggests that this SARS-CoV-2 variant may be more transmissible than previously circulating variants, with an estimated potential to increase the reproductive number (R 0 ) by 0.4-0.7 or greater with an estimated increased transmissibility of up to 70 percent. 7

On December 19, 2020, in response to the emergence of the UK variant, the countries comprising the UK announced stricter measures to be applied from December 20 and over the coming weeks, with affected areas entering a `Tier 4' level with movement restrictions within and between more and less heavily affected areas. These measures have included recommendations for residents of the most affected areas to restrict movements and travel, including international travel, outside of these areas. The government of Scotland announced a travel ban between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In addition, the Netherlands issued a travel ban from the UK effective through January 1, 2021, and Belgium temporarily halted flight and train travel from the UK. Other countries took similar measures to restrict travel from the UK.

A second new variant of SARS-CoV-2 was reported in the Republic of South Africa (RSA) on December 18, 2020, that also appears to spread more rapidly than earlier variants of the virus. The RSA variant is distinct from the UK variant but shares a mutation in the spike protein that appears to increase transmissibility. Since being identified, the new variant has spread inland from coastal regions of RSA and has become the predominant variant in some areas of the country.

During December 21-26, 2020, several countries implemented restrictions on travel from South Africa, including China, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Israel, Panama, Sudan, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK. The Netherlands imposed a ban on travel from RSA on December 21 but lifted the ban for both the UK and RSA on December 23, stating that travelers will instead need to present a negative COVID-19 test result obtained within 72 hours of their scheduled arrival in the Netherlands, followed by 10 days of self-quarantine. On December 28, Japan imposed a ban on entry of all foreign nationals through the end of January 2021. On December 28, the Government of South Africa announced new restrictions on businesses and public movement. As of January 7, 2021, Canada requires air passengers 5 years of age or older to test negative for COVID-19 before arrival. On January 8, the United Kingdom announced a pre-departure testing requirement for all inbound international travelers with limited exceptions; a 10-day post-arrival quarantine will still be required.

On December 25, 2020, CDC issued an Order requiring proof of a negative Qualifying Test result for all airline passengers arriving from the UK to the United States. Since then, cases of the UK and RSA variants have been discovered in four Canadian provinces, including in individuals with no travel history indicating spread in Canada. The UK variant has also been found in at least 50 countries and the RSA variant has also been detected in at least 15 countries. The first case of the UK variant in the United States was found in Colorado on December 29, in an individual with no known travel history. On December 30, a second case was reported in California. Since then, the UK variant strain has accounted for 72 cases in 10 U.S. states. Another new variant strain of concern initially detected in South America in March 2020 has been detected in at least 19 countries on 5 continents through late December and has mutations in the spike protein that raise concerns of increased infectivity.

While it is known and expected that viruses constantly change through mutation leading to the emergence of new variants, these new variants have emerged at a time when numbers of new cases in the United States have continued to increase at alarming rates. Additional new virus variants are also likely to emerge as the virus continues to evolve and mutate. Accordingly, further action is needed to help mitigate the spread of these and other new virus variants into the United States.

Based on increased transmissibility and spread of these new variants of SARS-CoV-2, and to reduce introduction and spread of these and future SARS-CoV-2 variants into the United States, expanding current UK pre-departure testing requirements to all foreign countries and U.S.-bound passengers is warranted. This approach to testing-based risk assessment has been addressed in CDC guidance and the Runway to Recovery guidance jointly issued by the Departments of Transportation, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services. 8 Testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is a proactive approach and not dependent on the infecting strain. Approximately 120 countries now use testing in some form to monitor risk and control introduction and spread. With case counts and deaths due to COVID-19 continuing to increase around the globe and the high proportion of infected people with asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections, the United States must take a dual approach to combatting the virus. This means concurrently mitigating and slowing the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2 and controlling transmission within U.S. communities that are currently being overwhelmed by a surge in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Pre-departure testing may detect travelers infected with SARS-CoV-2 before they initiate their travel. CDC recommends viral testing and receipt of results 1-3 days  9 before departure for international travelers, particularly those traveling long distances or passing through transportation hubs such as airports where social distancing may be challenging. CDC modeling indicates that pre-departure testing is most effective when combined with self-monitoring. 10 Testing before departure results in the greatest reduction of transmission risk during travel when the specimen is collected close to the time of departure. Earlier testing ( i.e., more than 3 days before travel) provides little benefit beyond what self-monitoring alone can provide.

For persons previously diagnosed with COVID-19 who remain asymptomatic after recovery, CDC does not recommended retesting within 3 months after the date of symptom onset (or the date of first positive viral diagnostic test if their infection was asymptomatic) for the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. 11 Persons who develop any symptoms of COVID-19 during this time period should not travel and seek care for testing and evaluation. This guidance may be updated as additional information about people who have recovered from COVID-19 becomes available.

Pre-departure testing does not eliminate all risk. However, when pre-departure testing is combined with other measures such as self-monitoring for symptoms of COVID-19, wearing masks, social distancing, and hand hygiene, it can make travel safer by reducing spread on conveyances, in transportation hubs, and at destinations. For international air travelers and others with higher risk of exposure, CDC additionally recommends a post-arrival test 3-5 days after arrival at destination, combined with self-monitoring and a 7-day period of staying home (or in a comparable location such as a hotel room) to further reduce the risk of translocating the virus into destination communities. 12

As cases of COVID-19 continue to rise across the globe and travel volume increases, routine pre-departure testing of all U.S.-bound aircraft passengers is needed not only to reduce introduction of the two known SARS-CoV-2 variants from UK and RSA, but also future variants that might be more transmissible and cause more severe illness.

For these reasons, I hereby determine that passengers covered by this Order are at risk of transmitting the new SARS-CoV-2 virus variants or other potential variants and that requiring such passengers to demonstrate either negative COVID-19 test results or recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed as a public health measure to protect the health of fellow travelers and U.S. communities.

Any airline or other aircraft operator with passengers arriving into the United States from a foreign country, for each passenger onboard the aircraft arriving into the United States, shall—

a. Verify that each passenger has attested to having received either a negative Qualifying Test result or to recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and clearance to travel. Airlines or other aircraft operators must retain a copy of each passenger attestation for 2 years. The attestation is attached to this order as Attachment A.

b. Confirm that each passenger aged 2 years or older has documentation of a negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19.

c. Not board any passenger without verifying the attestation and confirming the documentation as set forth in 1.a-b.

Any airline or other aircraft operator that fails to comply with section 1, “Requirement for Airlines & Other Aircraft Operators,” may be subject to criminal penalties under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 271 and 42 CFR 71.2, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571.

Any aircraft passenger departing from any foreign country with a destination in the United States shall—

(a) Provide an attestation to the CDC, through the airline or other aircraft operator, of having received a negative Qualifying Test result or of recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and clearance to travel. The attestation is attached to this order as Attachment A. Unless otherwise permitted by law, a parent or other authorized individual should attest on behalf of a passenger aged 2 to 17 years. An authorized individual may attest on behalf to any passenger who is unable to attest on his or her own behalf ( e.g., by reason of physical or mental impairment).

(b) Retain a copy of the negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19 in his/her possession and present it for inspection to the airline and upon request by an agent of the U.S. government or a cooperating state or local public health authority.

Any passenger who fails to comply with the requirements of section 2, “Requirements for Aircraft Passengers,” may be subject to criminal penalties under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 271 and 42 CFR 71.2, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571. Willfully giving false or misleading information to the government may result in criminal penalties under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. 1001.

CDC may modify this Order by an updated publication in the Federal Register or by posting an advisory to follow at www.cdc.gov.

This Order shall be enforceable through the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571; 42 U.S.C. 243, 268, 271; and 42 CFR 71.2.

This Order shall enter into effect on January 26, 2021 and shall remain in effect until the earliest of (1) the expiration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency; (2) the CDC Director rescinds or modifies the order based on specific public health or other considerations; or (3) December 31, 2021.

All airlines or other aircraft operators covered by the Order must provide the following disclosure to their passengers and collect the attestation prior to embarkation.

As required by United States federal law, all airlines or other aircraft operators must confirm either a negative COVID-19 test result or recovery from COVID-19 and clearance to travel and collect a passenger attestation on behalf of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for certain passengers on aircraft departing from a foreign country and arriving in the United States.

Each individual 2 years of age or older must provide a separate attestation. Unless otherwise permitted by law, a parent or other authorized individual should attest on behalf of a passenger aged 2 to 17 years. An individual may attest on behalf of another passenger for whom the individual is authorized to submit the required information (for example, immediate family member(s), legal guardian, or travel agent), if that person is unable to attest on his or her own behalf ( e.g., because of physical or mental impairment).

The information provided must be accurate and complete to the best of the individual's knowledge.

Under United States federal law, each passenger must provide this attestation. Failure to provide this attestation, or submitting false or misleading information, could result in delay of travel, denial of boarding, denial of boarding on future travel, or put the passenger or other individuals at risk of harm, including serious bodily injury or death. Any passenger who fails to comply with these requirements may be subject to criminal penalties under, among others, 42 U.S.C. 271 and 42 CFR 71.2, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571. Willfully providing false or misleading information may lead to criminal fines and imprisonment under, among others, 18 U.S.C. 1001. Providing this information can help protect you, your friends and family, your communities, and the United States. CDC appreciates your cooperation.

I [name of passenger or authorized representative] have read the disclosure pertaining to my obligation to obtain a negative pre-departure test result for COVID-19 or to having recovered from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and being cleared to travel in order to board an aircraft departing from a foreign country and arriving in the United States.

[ ] I attest that I have received a negative pre-departure test result for COVID-19. The test was a viral test that was conducted on a specimen collected from me during the 3 calendar days preceding the flight's departure.

[ ] I attest that I have recovered from COVID-19 in the last 3 months (90 days), or the time period specified in current CDC guidance, after having previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and have been cleared for travel by a licensed healthcare provider or public health official.

[ ] On behalf of [__], I attest that such person has received a negative pre-departure test result for COVID-19. The test was a viral test that was conducted on a specimen collected from that person during the 3 calendar days preceding the flight's departure.

[ ] On behalf of [__], I attest that such person has recovered from COVID-19 in the last 3 months (90 days), or the time period specified in current CDC guidance, after having previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and has been cleared for travel by a licensed healthcare provider or public health official.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requires airlines and other aircraft operators to collect this information pursuant to 42 CFR 71.20 and 71.31(b), as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 264. Providing this information is mandatory for all passengers arriving by aircraft into the United States. Failure to provide this information may prevent you from boarding the plane. Additionally, passengers will be required to attest to providing complete and accurate information, and failure to do so may lead to other consequences, including criminal penalties. CDC will use this information to help prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases by performing contact tracing investigations and notifying exposed individuals and public health authorities; and for health education, treatment, prophylaxis, or other appropriate public health interventions, including the implementation of travel restrictions.

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, governs the collection and use of this information. The information maintained by CDC will be covered by CDC's System of Records No. 09-20-0171, Quarantine- and Traveler-Related Activities, Including Records for Contact Tracing Investigation and Notification under 42 CFR parts 70 and 71. See 72 FR 70867 (Dec. 13, 2007), as amended by 76 FR 4485 (Jan. 25, 2011) and 83 FR 6591 (Feb. 14, 2018). CDC will only disclose information from the system outside the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as the Privacy Act permits, including in accordance with the routine uses published for this system in the Federal Register , and as authorized by law. Such lawful purposes may include, but are not limited to, sharing identifiable information with state and local public health departments, and other cooperating authorities. CDC and cooperating authorities will retain, use, delete, or otherwise destroy the designated information in accordance with federal law and the System of Records Notice (SORN) set forth above. You may contact the system manager at dgmqpolicyoffice@cdc.gov or by mailing Policy Office, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H16-4, Atlanta, GA 30329, if you have questions about CDC's use of your data.

The authority for these orders is Sections 361 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) and 42 CFR 71.20 & 71.31(b).

The components of this information request include:

1. Corrective Action Report (Form M-1): This instrument is used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff), ORR Federal Field Specialists, and ORR Project Officers to document care provider non-compliance with minimum standards for the care and timely release of UAC; federal and state laws and regulations; licensing standards; ORR policies and procedures; and child welfare standards. Care providers respond to each corrective action cited by ORR staff by entering a detail corrective action plan into the instrument and attaching any relevant supporting documents. Then, ORR staff document when each corrective action plan is completed to ORR's satisfaction and enter a final determination.

2. FFS Compliance and Safety Site Visit Report (Form M-3A): This instrument is used by ORR Federal Field Specialists to document site visit observations and interview responses.

3. Out-of-Network Site Visit Report (Form M-3B): This instrument is used by ORR Federal Field Specialists to document site visit observations and interview responses for out-of-network providers.

These instruments are used by care providers on a voluntary basis to help ensure compliance with ORR policies and procedures related to maintaining a safe, child-friendly environment. ORR may also ask care providers to complete the checklist prior to a site visit.

4. Checklist for a Child-Friendly Environment—Care Provider Facility (Form M-4A)

5. Checklist for a Child-Friendly Environment—Individual Foster Home (Form M-4B)

These instruments are used by ORR care provider staff to provide information to ORR on allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred in ORR care that were investigated by local child protective services, state licensing, local law enforcement, the HHS Office of the Inspector General, and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Care providers submit the instrument to ORR's Prevention of Sexual Abuse Team for review. Incident reviews help ensure that care providers have appropriate protective measures in place to prevent a similar incident from occurring again.

6. UAC Incident Review (Form M-5A): This instrument is completed for allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred in ORR care between two children.

7. Adult Incident Review (Form M-5B): This instrument is completed for allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred in ORR care between a child and an adult.

These instruments are used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) to compile comprehensive notes and information related to biennial monitoring visits. There are separate instruments tailored specifically for monitoring of long term foster care (LTFC) programs and/or remote monitoring visits.

8. Monitoring Notes (Form M-6A)

9. Remote Monitoring Notes (Form M-6B)

10. Long Term Foster Care Monitoring Notes (Form M-6C)

11. Long Term Foster Care Remote Monitoring Notes (Form M-6D)

These instruments are completed by care provider staff as part of the pre-monitoring process for biennial site visits and provide ORR Monitoring Team staff with information and supporting documents related to the overall functioning and oversight of the care provider program. There are separate instruments tailored specifically for monitoring of LTFC programs, home study and post-release (HS/PRS) service providers, and/or voluntary agencies (primary grantees for LTFC and transitional foster care sub-grantees).

12. Site Visit Guide (Form M-7A)

13. Remote Monitoring Site Visit Guide (Form M-7B)

14. Long Term Foster Care Site Visit Guide (Form M-7C)

15. Long Term Foster Care Remote Site Visit Guide (Form M-7D)

16. Home Study and Post-Release Services Site Visit Guide (Form M-7E)

17. Voluntary Agency Site Visit Guide (Form M-7F)

These instruments are used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) during biennial site visits to document care provider compliance with ORR policies and procedures related to case file maintenance. There are separate instruments tailored specifically for monitoring of LTFC programs, and HS/PRS providers, plus an addendum for secure and staff secure programs.

18. UAC Case File Checklist (Form M-8A)

19. Long Term Foster Care Case File Checklist (Form M-8B)

20. Home Study and Post-Release Services Case File Checklist (Form M-8C)

21. Secure and Staff Secure Addendum to Case File Checklist (Form M-8D)

These instruments are used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) to document their findings during the walkthrough portion of biennial site visits. There are separate instruments tailored specifically for monitoring of foster homes and PRS home observations.

22. On Site Monitoring Checklist (Form M-9A)

23. Foster Home On Site Monitoring Checklist (Form M-9B)

24. Post-Release Services Home Observation (Form M-9C)

These instruments are completed by care provider staff and ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) during biennial site visits to ensure that programs are meeting ORR policies and procedures related to the maintenance of personnel files. There are separate instruments tailored specifically for HS/PRS provider files and LTFC parent files.

25. Personnel File Checklist (Form M-10A)

26. Supplement to Personnel File Checklist (Form M-10B)

27. Home Study and Post-Release Services Personnel File Checklist (Form M-10C)

28. Long Term Foster Care Foster Parent Checklist (Form M-10D)

These instruments are used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) during biennial site visits to interview and document responses from various care provider program staff.

29. Program Director Questionnaire (Form M-11A)

30. Long Term Foster Care Program Director Questionnaire (Form M-11B)

31. Clinician Questionnaire (Form M-11C)

32. Long Term Foster Care Clinician Questionnaire (Form M-11D)

33. Case Manager Questionnaire (Form M-11E)

34. Long Term Foster Care Case Manager Questionnaire (Form M-11F)

35. Education Staff Questionnaire (Form M-11G)

36. Long Term Foster Care Education Questionnaire (Form M-11H)

37. Medical Coordinator Questionnaire (Form M-11I)

38. Youth Care Worker Questionnaire (Form M-11J)

39. Prevention of Sexual Abuse Compliance Manager Staff Questionnaire (Form M-11K)

40. Secure Detention Officer Questionnaire (Form M-11L)

41. Long Term Foster Care Home Finder Questionnaire (Form M-11M)

42. Long Term Foster Care Independent Living Life Skills Staff Questionnaire (Form M-11N)

43. Long Term Foster Care Foster Parent Questionnaire (Form M-11O)

These instruments are used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) during biennial site visits to interview and document responses from UAC.

44. UAC Questionnaire—Ages 6-12 Years Old (Form M-12A)

45. UAC Questionnaire—Ages 13 and Older (Form M-12B)

46. Long Term Foster Care Client Questionnaire (Form M-12C)

47. Secure Client Questionnaire (Form M-12D)

These instruments are used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) during biennial site visits to interview and document responses from various service providers.

48. Home Study and Post-Release Services Director Questionnaire (Form M-11A)

49. Home Study and Post-Release Services Caseworker Questionnaire (Form M-13B)

50. Legal Service Provider Questionnaire (Form M-13C)

51. Long Term Foster Care Legal Service Provider Questionnaire (Form M-13D)

52. Case Coordinator Questionnaire (Form M-13E)

These instruments are used by ORR Monitoring Team staff (includes federal and contractor staff) to plan and track biennial site visits for each fiscal year. These forms will be housed in ORR's new database, UAC Path.

53. Monitoring Visit (Form M-14)

54. Monitoring Schedule (Form M-15)

Respondents: ORR grantee and contractor staff, foster parents, and UAC.