The revised land management plans were developed pursuant to the 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and will replace the 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan and 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement, and the 1992 Sierra National Forest Land Management Plan. The revised plans describe desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines that will guide future projects and management activities on the forests and will become effective 30 days after the publication of this notice of approval in the Federal Register (36 CFR 219.17(a)(1)). The Forest Service initiated plan revision for these two national forests in 2013 and developed the revised plans through extensive collaboration and consultation with Tribes, interested public, and other stakeholders.

The revised plans will help sustain forest and watershed health and productivity by addressing tree mortality, restoring forest conditions, facilitating use of fire to achieve desired conditions, and providing for sustainable recreation. The plans provide management direction that applies the best available science for conserving at-risk species like the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl. The revised land management plans, FEIS, and draft RODs were released in June 2022, initiating a 60-day objection filing period. The Forest Service received 27 eligible objections. The Reviewing Officer, Deputy Regional Forester Jody Holzworth, reviewed each of the objections, met with objectors and interested parties at an objection resolution meeting, and issued a written response to the objections on December 16, 2022. In her written response, the Reviewing Officer included instructions for the Responsible Officials to implement prior to signing final decisions.

The forests updated the FEIS, revised land management plans, RODs, and planning record as needed, consistent with instructions from the Objection Reviewing Officer. The final RODs to approve the revised land management plans for the Sequoia and Sierra and National Forests have now been signed by the Responsible Officials and are available at the website listed above.

Responsible Official: The Responsible Official for approving the Sequoia National Forest revised land management plan is Forest Supervisor Teresa Benson. The Responsible Official for approving the Sierra National Forest revised land management plan is Forest Supervisor Dean Gould. The Responsible Official approving the list of species of conservation concern is Jacqueline Emanuel, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see, 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies the following information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB as extension to an existing collection with Agency adjustment.

Title: Rural eConnectivity (ReConnect) Program.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0152.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2023.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 325 hours per response.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions and other businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 480.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 59.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 156,090 hours.

Abstract: The ReConnect Program was authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141), which directed the program to be conducted under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901, et seq. ). The program has received successive appropriations by Congress and has matured due to Agency experience, feedback, and comments provided by stakeholders.

The ReConnect Program provides loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas. Loans and grants are furnished to provide funds for the costs of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment needed to provide broadband service in eligible rural areas. In facilitating the expansion of broadband services and infrastructure, the program fuels long-term rural economic development and opportunities across rural America. The eligibility requirements, application process, and criteria that RUS uses to assess applicants' creditworthiness for the ReConnect Program are published at 7 CFR 1740 subpart B. For a proposed funded service area to be eligible for funding, at least 90 percent of the households in the proposed funded service area must lack sufficient access to broadband.

Comments are invited on:

(a) 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;

(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Crystal Pemberton, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at (202) 260-8621. Email: Crystal.Pemberton@usda.gov. 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 December 16, 2022, Commerce published in the Federal Register its preliminary determination that imports of SSWire from Vietnam are not circumventing the AD order on SSWR from Korea. 1 On April 4, 2023, Commerce extended the deadline for the final determination of this circumvention inquiry to May 24, 2023. 2 For a summary of events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for the final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 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 https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

This circumvention inquiry covers SSWire completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin SSWR and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States during the period of inquiry January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021.

Commerce is conducted this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.226. See the Preliminary Determination PDM for a full description of the methodology. 5 We have continued to apply this methodology for this final determination. 6

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at the appendix.

As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines that the imports of SSWire completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin SSWR and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States are not circumventing the Order on a country-wide basis. Accordingly, Commerce is making a negative finding of circumvention of the Order.

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

This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(1).

Commerce published the Preliminary Results on December 1, 2022, 1 and invited comments from interested parties. For a description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

The merchandise covered by the Order is rebar. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised by interested parties in case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of issues raised by the interested parties, and to which Commerce responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, are provided in Appendix I to this notice. 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 http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and the comments received from interested parties, we revised the calculation of the net countervailable subsidy rates for Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. (Colakoglu) and Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan). For a discussion of the issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 4 For a description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

It is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. 5 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the countervailing duty assessment rate calculated for the review period. 6 Therefore, for an administrative review of a company to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate at the countervailing duty assessment rate calculated for the review period. 7

According to the CBP import data, except for the two mandatory respondents and the non-selected company, the remaining 21 companies subject to this review did not have reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. 8 There is no evidence on the record of this segment of the proceeding to indicate that these companies had entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Further, in response to the Preliminary Results, no party submitted information to contradict the information on the record. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix II.

There is one company, Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Icdas), for which a review was requested but which was not selected as a mandatory respondent or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. We made no changes to the methodology for determining a rate for companies not selected for individual examination from the Preliminary Results. However, due to changes in calculations for Colakoglu and Kaptan, the non-selected rate changed. Thus, for Icdas, the non-selected company in this review, we are applying an ad valorem subsidy rate of 2.15 percent.

We find the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the POR January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020:

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

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we also intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above for the above-listed companies with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results of review. For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 sanctionable violation.

The final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to a Pacific Insular Area other than American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands, that is, in the EEZ around the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). The PRIA are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island. Before entering into a PIAFA for the PRIA, the Council must develop and submit to the Secretary a 3-year MCP that details the uses for funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA. NMFS is the designee of the Secretary for MCP review and approval.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires payments received under a PIAFA, and any funds or contributions received in support of conservation and management objectives for the MCP, to be deposited into the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund (Fund) for use by the Council. Additionally, in the case of violations by foreign fishing vessels in the EEZ around the PRIA, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including sums collected from the forfeiture and disposition or sale of property seized subject to its authority, are deposited into the Fund for use by the Council, after direct costs of the enforcement action are subtracted. Section 204(e)(7)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also authorizes the Council to use the Fund to meet conservation and management objectives in the State of Hawaii, if funds remain available.

An MCP must be consistent with the Council's fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs), must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing in the PRIA is being considered at this time, the Council reviewed and approved the draft MCP at its March 2023 meeting. On April 5, 2023, the Council's Executive Director submitted the MCP to NMFS for review and approval.

The MCP contains the following five conservation and management objectives that are consistent with the FEP for the PRIA and the FEP for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific:

1. Support quality research and monitoring to obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries within an ecosystem approach;

2. Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council's decision making process;

3. Promote regional cooperation to manage domestic and international fisheries;

4. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) and to ensure safety at sea; and

5. Western Pacific Community Development Program and Western Pacific Community Demonstration Projects Program.

In addition, the MCP contains seven conservation and management objectives that are consistent with the FEP for the Hawaii Archipelago:

1. Support quality research and monitoring to obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries within an ecosystem approach;

2. Promote an ecosystem approach to fisheries management including reducing bycatch in fisheries and minimizing impacts on marine habitat and impacts on protected species and addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation;

3. Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council's decision making process;

4. Recognize the importance of island cultures and traditional fishing practices in managing fishery resources and foster opportunities for participation;

5. Promote responsible domestic fisheries development to provide long term economic growth and stability by reducing foreign imports and increasing local seafood production;

6. Promote regional cooperation and capacity building to manage domestic and international fisheries; and

7. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control and surveillance and to ensure safety at sea.

Please refer to the MCP for projects and activities designed to meet each objective, the evaluative criteria, and priority rankings.

This notice announces that NMFS has reviewed the MCP and determined that it satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, we have approved the MCP for the 3-year period from August 4, 2023, through August 3, 2026. This MCP supersedes the one approved previously for August 4, 2020, through August 3, 2023 (85 FR 65389, October 15, 2020).

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) submitted a complete application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:

The purpose of this survey is to provide fishery-independent data on lobster growth and abundance within Massachusetts State waters of statistical areas 514 and 538. MA DMF funds this lobster abundance survey through their commercial and recreational lobster license fees. This survey has occurred annually since 2006. At least one MA DMF scientist would be on board for the sampling trips. MA DMF personnel would not be on board when traps are baited and deployed. Exemptions would not substantively chance vessel operations. All catch during sampling trips would be retained temporarily to collect biological data. MA DMF staff may collect lobster and/or Jonah crab, including undersized, oversized, v-notched, and egg-bearing lobsters. Collected samples would be used for research projects on growth and maturity. No catch from the experimental traps would be landed for sale. All gear would be Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan compliant. Survey traps will be separate from each vessel's commercial lobster traps and would be tagged as, “MADMF Research Traps.”

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate the completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing in https://www.noaa.gov/organization/information-technology/foia-reading-room without change. All personal identifying information ( e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “anonymous” as the signature if you wish to remain anonymous).

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The Herring Advisory Panel will receive a report from the Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) covering these agenda topics. They will revisit Amendment 8 Inshore Midwater Trawl Closure—suggest revisions to a draft problem statement and discuss preliminary PDT work on Committee tasking. The Panel will discuss a potential change in 2023 Council priorities to develop river herring and shad time/area closures. They will make recommendations to the Herring Committee, as appropriate, and discuss other business, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The Committee will review the 2024/2025 Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) and develop research recommendations for the notice of funding opportunity announcement (NOFO). Also on the agenda are Scallop RSA program modifications: discuss recommending administrative changes to the Scallop RSA program, including the consideration of longer-term regional survey awards. The committee will also discuss scallop specifications and receive an update on the timeline and possible measures. This action will be initiated at the June 2023 Council meeting. The committee will discuss Northern Edge: progress report and timeline for action to potentially authorize scallop fishery access to habitat management area. Other business will be discussed, if necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

MSE is a process that allows fishery managers and stakeholders ( e.g., industry, scientists, and non-governmental organizations) to assess how well different strategies achieve specified management objectives for a fishery. ICCAT expects to finalize its North Atlantic swordfish MSE in 2023 and anticipates adopting a management procedure in November 2023 to set the total allowable catch for 2024 and future years for the stock. NMFS, and the United States Government more broadly, engages in this MSE development, an important part of which involves considering stakeholder input throughout the process through various means, including consultation with the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT. The United States is also participating in the development of the North Atlantic swordfish MSE through the active involvement of U.S. scientists in the scientific work carried out by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS).

The June 16 meeting is intended to update U.S. stakeholders and solicit their input on the MSE approach being developed by ICCAT for North Atlantic swordfish. NMFS will provide information on the progress of the SCRS in developing initial candidate management procedures (CMPs) and testing them based on initial input on management objectives and other relevant matters from ICCAT's Panel 4. CMPs illustrate tradeoffs associated with achieving identified management objectives related to stock status, stock safety, yield, and catch stability over time. CMP testing assists ICCAT in refining management objectives and narrowing the number of viable CMPs for possible adoption by the Commission. This open session Advisory Committee meeting is primarily informational in nature and is intended to increase the opportunity for stakeholder awareness and input on the North Atlantic swordfish MSE process. Discussions at the meeting will help inform U.S. scientists who are participating in the work of the SCRS as well as U.S. managers participating in relevant Commission related meetings later in 2023 addressing the North Atlantic swordfish MSE.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The original notice published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2023 (88 FR 32735). This notice adds agenda items.

The purpose of this online meeting is for the MPC to consider current offshore wind (OSW) energy issues and to provide information and advice to the Pacific Council for consideration at its June 2023 meeting. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to discuss pending Fisheries Communications Plans for the five California OSW leases provisionally awarded in December 2022. We anticipate representatives of the five California OSW leases to be present to join the discussion. Other topics may be considered as appropriate.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The purpose of this meeting is to familiarize the HMSAS with relevant topics to be taken up at the June 2023 Pacific Council meeting and begin considering the contents of reports the HMSAS may wish to submit to the Council. An agenda for the HMSAS meeting will be posted on the Council's website at least one week prior to the meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The USPTO seeks public comments on a proposed Track Three Pilot Program directed at lowering a barrier to intellectual property protection. The proposed Track Three Pilot Program would be limited to micro entity applicants. Micro entity applicants are typically under-resourced and often need additional time for commercialization efforts and to ascertain the value of their inventions. The USPTO envisions permitting micro entity applicants to request a 30-month time period from the earliest filing date claimed to pay the search fee and the examination fee in a nonprovisional utility or plant application, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), if certain conditions are met. The USPTO is also considering including an option that would permit micro entity applicants, under certain conditions, to additionally obtain a pre-examination search report prior to the deadline for payment of the examination fee.

In June 2010, the USPTO requested comments from the public on a proposal to provide applicants with greater control over when their original utility or plant applications are examined and to promote work sharing between intellectual property offices. See Enhanced Examination Timing Control Initiative; Notice of Public Meeting, 75 FR 31763 (June 4, 2010), 1355 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 323 (June 29, 2010). Specifically, the Office proposed to adopt procedures under which an applicant would be able to:

(1) request prioritized examination of an original utility or plant nonprovisional application (Track One);

(2) request a delay in docketing the application for examination by filing a request for delay in payment of the search fee, the examination fee, the claims fees, and the surcharge (if required) for a maximum period not to exceed 30 months in an original non-continuing utility or plant application, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), that does not claim the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application (Track Three); or

(3) obtain processing under the current examination procedure (Track Two) by not requesting either Track One or Track Three processing.

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was enacted, and section 11(h) included provisions for prioritized examination. A week later, the USPTO amended the rules of practice to implement the prioritized examination provisions of section 11(h) of the AIA. See Changes To Implement the Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced Examination Timing Control Procedures Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 76 FR 59050 (Sept. 23, 2011), 1371 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 151 (Oct. 18, 2011).

The USPTO currently has a deferred examination practice, under which any applicant (regardless of entity status) may request deferral of examination of an original utility or plant application for a period not extending beyond three years from the earliest filing date claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386, if certain conditions are met. See 37 CFR 1.103(d). It is the USPTO's practice to not grant a request for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) until all required fees (including the search fee and the examination fee) have been paid and the application is complete. A request for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) also requires payment of a processing fee.

Furthermore, a request for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) may be submitted after the application has been filed, but the request will not be granted if the USPTO has issued an Office action, under 35 U.S.C. 132, or a notice of allowance, under 35 U.S.C. 151.

The USPTO also has a practice (“missing parts” practice) that permits applications to be filed without claims, the inventor's oath or declaration, or fees being present on filing. See 37 CFR 1.53(f). Specifically, under current practice, the USPTO will send a Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application (Notice to File Missing Parts) if a nonprovisional application, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), has been accorded a filing date but does not include:

(1) the basic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(a) or (c));

(2) the search fee (37 CFR 1.16(k) or (m));

(3) the examination fee (37 CFR 1.16(o) or (q));

(4) at least one claim; and/or

(5) either the inventor's oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76.

The Notice to File Missing Parts will set a time period for the applicant to submit the missing items and pay the required surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment. If excess claims fees under 37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), and/or (j); an application size fee under 37 CFR 1.16(s); and/or the non-electronic filing fee under 37 CFR 1.16(t) are required and any of these fees have not been paid, the Notice to File Missing Parts will also require that these fees be paid within the period for response to the Notice to File Missing Parts. Although the rules of practice do not specify the time period for response to the Notice to File Missing Parts, the USPTO currently sets a two-month time period for that response, with extensions of time of up to five months available under 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Finally, under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), an applicant may seek patent protection in the United States, and other jurisdictions, by first filing an international application and then filing a national stage entry as to the United States as well as entry into other jurisdictions. This practice, subject to various conditions and requirements, permits a similar 30-month period for applicants to defer certain filing decisions. As is the case with the deferred examination practice and missing parts practice, this option requires payment of additional fees and the fulfillment of other requirements relative to the proposed Track Three Pilot Program.

The USPTO recognizes that under-resourced applicants may need a low-cost option with minimal requirements to allow them additional time for commercialization efforts and to ascertain the value of their inventions. To that end, the USPTO seeks public comments on a proposed Track Three Pilot Program.

On the filing of an application seeking benefit under the proposed Track Three Pilot Program, a micro entity applicant would be provided a 30-month (non-extendable) time period to pay the search fee and/or the examination fee if the applicant satisfies the following conditions:

(1) the applicant must submit a request to participate in the Track Three Pilot Program with the nonprovisional application on filing, by using a USPTO form that would be provided for this purpose;

(2) the nonprovisional application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) within the duration of the pilot program and be entitled to a filing date;

(3) the nonprovisional application must not claim priority to or benefit of any prior-filed application other than a prior-filed provisional application(s);

(4) the basic filing fee under 37 CFR 1.16(a) or (c) (as applicable) and any required non-electronic filing fee under 37 CFR 1.16(t) must have been paid;

(5) the search fee under 37 CFR 1.16(k) or (m) (as applicable) and/or the examination fee under 37 CFR 1.16(o) or (q) (as applicable) must not have been paid;

(6) the applicant must properly establish micro entity status under 37 CFR 1.29 in the nonprovisional application;

(7) the applicant must not have filed a nonpublication request; and

(8) the application must be in condition for publication as provided in 37 CFR 1.211(c) (including, for example, payment of any required application size fee under 37 CFR 1.16(s) and the inventor's oath or declaration or an application data sheet containing the information specified in 37 CFR 1.63(b)).

To complete the application for examination and avoid abandonment, the search fee, the examination fee, and any other required fees would be due within 30 months from the earliest filing date claimed, including any filing date of a prior provisional application that is relied upon for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

Under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), the USPTO is required to publish the application promptly after the expiration of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (which may only be the filing date of a prior-filed U.S. provisional application for the proposed Track Three Pilot Program), as the application may not include a nonpublication request. Therefore, as noted above, the nonprovisional application must be in condition for publication as provided in 37 CFR 1.211(c). In addition to the basic filing fee and the inventor's oath or declaration or an application data sheet containing the information specified in 37 CFR 1.63(b), the USPTO requires the following in order for the nonprovisional application to be in condition for publication:

(1) a specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52;

(2) an abstract in compliance with 37 CFR 1.72(b);

(3) drawings (if any) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84;

(4) any application size fee required under 37 CFR 1.16(s);

(5) any English translation required under 37 CFR 1.52(d); and

(6) a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with 37 CFR 1.831-1.835 (if applicable).

If the requirements for publication are not met, the applicant would need to satisfy the publication requirements within a two-month extendable time period. The required publication of applications participating in the Track Three Pilot Program is similar to the required publication of international applications under the PCT and nonprovisional applications in which the applicant seeks deferred examination. In all three instances, the publication provides public notice of the existence of the application as well as access to the application.

The USPTO is also considering including an additional “plus” option in the Track Three Pilot Program in which, under certain conditions, the micro entity applicant could obtain a pre-examination search report prior to the deadline for payment of the examination fee. The USPTO recently added an artificial intelligence (AI) search feature as a tool for examiners ( see New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search, 1504 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 359 (Nov. 15, 2022)). Under the “plus” option, relevant references from the AI search tool would be identified and would form the basis of a preexamination search report. The pre-examination search report would provide applicants with additional information as they consider potential commercialization and the value of their invention. If the micro entity applicant chooses the “plus” option, payment of the examination fee and any other required fees except the search fee may be delayed until the expiration of the later of:

(1) six months (non-extendable) from the date of the search report; or

(2) a period of 30 months (non-extendable) from the earlier of:

(a) the actual filing date of the application; or

(b) the filing date of the earliest provisional application for which benefit is claimed.

The publication of the application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) will still occur promptly after the expiration of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought.

The requirements for participation in the “plus” option would be identical to the basic Track Three Pilot Program requirements explained above, except that the following additional conditions must be met:

(1) the applicant must submit a request to participate in the “plus” part of the program along with payment of the search fee under 37 CFR 1.16(k) or (m) (as applicable) prior to the expiration of a specified deadline;

(2) the application may not contain more than 3 independent claims, more than 20 total claims, or any multiple dependent claims; and

(3) the claims must be drawn to a single invention.

To complete the application for examination and avoid abandonment, the examination fee and any other required fees would be due within the later of:

(1) six months (non-extendable) from the date of the search report; or

(2) a period of 30 months (non-extendable) from the earlier of:

(a) the actual filing date of the application; or

(b) the filing date of the earliest provisional application for which benefit is claimed.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, enacted on December 29, 2022, included the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022 (UAIA), containing a number of patent-related provisions. 136 Stat. 4459. Section 106 of the UAIA provides for a pre-prosecution assessment pilot program. Specifically, section 106(a) of the UAIA provides that “[n]ot later than [December 29, 2023], the Director shall establish a pilot program to assist first-time prospective patent applicants in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a potential patent application submitted by such a prospective applicant.” Section 106(b) of the UAIA provides that “[i]n developing the pilot program required under subsection (a), the Director shall establish: (1) a notification process to notify a prospective patent applicant seeking an assessment described in that subsection that any assessment so provided may not be considered an official ruling of patentability from the Office; (2) conditions to determine eligibility for the pilot program, taking into consideration available resources; (3) reasonable limitations on the amount of time to be spent providing assistance to each individual first-time prospective patent applicant; (4) procedures for referring prospective patent applicants to legal counsel, including through the patent pro bono programs; and (5) procedures to protect the confidentiality of the information disclosed by prospective patent applicants.” The USPTO is planning to leverage the process for producing the pre-examination search report, as discussed in this notice, for the pilot program required by section 106(a) of the UAIA to assist first-time prospective patent applicants in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their potential patent application.

Fees are subject to change, and the fees due in an application are the fees in effect at the time of fee payment. Therefore, if the search fee, examination fee, excess claims fees, and/or the surcharge (or any other fees) have changed after the mailing or notification date of a Notice to File Missing Parts that sets a time period to pay such fees, the applicant would be required to pay the revised fee amounts. Applicants who are considering filing under the proposed Track Three Pilot Program should consider that the fee amounts due 30 months after the application is filed may be higher than the fee amounts in effect when the application was filed.

By statute, any patent term adjustment (PTA) accrued by an applicant based on delays by the USPTO is “reduced by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application” (“applicant delay”). See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(i). Taking more than three months to respond to any Office action or notice is considered an “applicant delay.” See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(ii) and 37 CFR 1.704(b). Thus, if an applicant replies to a Notice to File Missing Parts more than three months after the mailing of the notice, any positive PTA accrued by the applicant will be reduced by the period of time in excess of three months taken to reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts. In addition, the failure to place an application in condition for examination (defined in 37 CFR 1.704(f)) within eight months from the date on which the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is also an “applicant delay” and will result in a reduction of any positive PTA accrued by the applicant. See 37 CFR 1.704(c)(13). However, if an “applicant delay” occurs under both these provisions on the same calendar day, the applicant will be assessed only one day of applicant delay ( i.e., no overlapping reduction). It should be noted, however, that this proposed Track Three Pilot Program would not be considered a suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103 at the applicant's request, and thus applicant delay would not be assessed under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(1). No change to the current regulations (including the PTA regulations) is contemplated to implement the proposed Track Three Pilot Program.

The optional pre-examination search report contemplated by the USPTO is not an action under 35 U.S.C. 132, and no reply to the pre-examination search report itself is necessary to avoid abandonment. Thus, the pre-examination search report will not toll the 14-month time period under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i), and therefore, positive PTA will accrue after expiration of the 14-month time period under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i) until an action under 35 U.S.C. 132 or 151 is mailed. However, any positive PTA accrued by the applicant will be reduced by the period of time in excess of three months taken to reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts, as well as the period of time in excess of eight months taken to place the application in condition for examination as defined in 37 CFR 1.704(f), except that the applicant will be assessed only one day of applicant delay if both of these delays occur on the same calendar day.

The USPTO welcomes any comments from the public on the proposed program discussed in this notice. Commenters are also welcome to respond to any or all of the following questions:

1. Should the USPTO implement the proposed Track Three Pilot Program? Why or why not?

2. If the USPTO implements the proposed Track Three Pilot Program, do you or members of your organization believe that the public would use it for eligible applications?

3. If the proposed Track Three Pilot Program is used, to what extent do you or members of your organization believe the public would use the “plus” option?

4. If the proposed “plus” option in the Track Three Pilot Program is used, what information would you or members of your organization like to see in the pre-examination search report? For example, options may include a simple list of relevant references, a list of relevant references with a short explanation of why they are relevant, a PCT-style search report that identifies how references are pertinent to specific claims, or something different.

5. Would the proposed “plus” option in the Track Three Pilot Program be used if the search is performed by a USPTO artificial intelligence search tool(s) only? For example, the search report may include a list of references generated by the artificial intelligence tool(s) or may include relevant references identified by a patent examiner from the artificial intelligence search results along with some level of context ranging from a short explanation to a full PCT-style report.

6. Are there any conditions of the proposed Track Three Pilot Program that should be modified? For example, is the 30-month time period sufficient to determine whether to proceed with prosecution of the application?

7. Do the current practices discussed in this notice ( i.e., deferred examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d), the missing parts practice, or PCT practice) provide sufficient additional time to determine whether to pay the fees and/or proceed with prosecution of the application?

8. If an applicant participating in the proposed Track Three Pilot Program becomes aware that the application is no longer entitled to micro entity status, how should that discovery impact the status of the application in the proposed Track Three Pilot Program?

For example, should the applicant be required to promptly pay the remaining fees and thereby complete the application so it can be forwarded for examination?

On 3/17/2023 the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service(s) to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service(s) to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:

The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the expiration of the NASA Langley Research Center, Custodial Service, Hampton, VA contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the NASA Langley Research Center will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on June 16, 2023, ensuring timely execution for a July 1, 2023 start date while still allowing 21 days for comment. The Committee also published a notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the Federal Register on March 17, 2023 and did not receive any comments from any interested persons. This addition will not create a public hardship and has limited effect on the public at large, but, rather, will create new jobs for other affected parties—people with significant disabilities in the AbilityOne program who otherwise face challenges locating employment. Moreover, this addition will enable Federal customer operations to continue without interruption.

Title: Procedural Requirements for Requests for Interpretative, No-Action, and Exemptive Letters (OMB Control No. 3038-0049). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: This collection covers the information requirements for voluntary requests for, and the issuance of, interpretative, no-action, and exemptive letters submitted to Commission staff pursuant to the provisions of section 140.99 of the Commission's regulations, 2 and related requests for confidential treatment pursuant to section 140.98(b)  3 of the Commission's regulations.

The collection requirements described herein are voluntary. They apply to parties that choose to request a benefit from Commission staff in the form of the regulatory action described in section 140.99. Such benefits may include, for example, relief from some or all of the burdens associated with other collections of information, relief from regulatory obligations that do not constitute collections of information, interpretations, or extensions of time for compliance with certain Commission regulations. It is likely that persons who would opt to request action under section 140.99 will have determined that the information collection burdens that they would assume by doing so will be outweighed substantially by the relief that they seek to receive.

This information collection is necessary, and would be used, to assist Commission staff in understanding the type of relief that is being requested and the basis for the request. It is also necessary, and would be used, to provide staff with a sufficient basis for determining whether: (1) granting the relief would be necessary or appropriate under the facts and circumstances presented by the requestor; (2) the relief provided should be conditional and/or time-limited; and (3) granting the relief would be consistent with staff responses to requests that have been presented under similar facts and circumstances. In some cases, the requested relief might be granted upon the condition that those who seek the benefits of that relief fulfill certain conditions that are necessary to ensure that the relief granted by Commission staff is appropriate. Once again, it is likely that those who would comply with these conditions will have determined that the burden of complying with the conditions is outweighed by the relief that they seek to receive. This information collection also is necessary to provide a mechanism whereby persons requesting interpretative, no-action, and exemptive letters may seek temporary confidential treatment of their request and the Commission staff response thereto and the grounds upon which such confidential treatment is sought.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 4 On February 23, 2023, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 88 FR 11410 (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission did not receive any relevant comments on the 60-Day Notice.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its existing burden estimate for this information collection. The Commission is basing its new estimate of the annual number of respondents related to this information collection, in part, on the average number of interpretative, no-action, and exemptive letters issued by Commission staff in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The Commission generally estimates that each request was made by a unique respondent. To that number, the Commission is adding additional respondents that have incurred burden hours preparing requests for relief that did not generate a Commission staff letter in response.

This estimate includes the burden hours for preparing, filing, and updating such request letters as well as the burden of complying with any conditions that may be contained in any interpretative, no-action, or exemptive letters granting relief. It also includes burden hours required to prepare and submit related requests for confidential treatment. The burden hours associated with individual requests will vary widely, depending upon the type and complexity of relief requested, whether the request presents novel or complex issues, the relevant facts and circumstances, and the number of requestors or other affected entities.

The respondent burden is estimated to be as follows:

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 45.

Estimated Average Annual Burden Hours per Respondent: 40.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,800.

Frequency of Collection: Occasional.

Type of Respondents: Respondents include persons registered with the Commission (such as commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors, derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, swap dealers, and swap execution facilities), persons seeking an exemption from registration, persons whose registration with the Commission is pending, trade associations and their members, eligible contract participants, and other persons seeking relief from discrete regulatory requirements.

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

The Department 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: Application Forms and Instructions for the Fulbright-Hays Training Grants: Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (CFDA Number 84.022A) and Faculty Research Abroad (CFDA Number 84.019A).

OMB Control Number: 1840-0005.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector .

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 495.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 11,875.

Abstract: This information collection is a revision, the purpose of which is to make changes to the DDRA and FRA applications to be consistent with an NPRM to amend the programs' regulations. The programs' applications must be updated to reflect the regulatory changes relating to the programs' selection criteria in CFR part 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3). These amendments will result in a change in DDRA student respondents and hour burden.

The purpose of Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act) is to promote and develop modern foreign language training and area studies throughout the educational structure of the United States. To help accomplish this objective, fellowships are awarded through US institutions of higher education to American faculty and dissertation students enabling them to conduct overseas research and enhance their foreign language proficiency.

Under the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) and the Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) programs, individual scholars apply through eligible institutions for an institutional grant to support the research fellowship. These institutions administer the program in cooperation with the US Department of Education (US/ED) as provided under the authority of Sections 102(b)(6) and 104(e)(1) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, 34 CFR parts 662, and the Policy Statements of the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB).

This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and recommendations concerning the following EM site-specific issues: clean-up activities and environmental restoration; waste and nuclear materials management and disposition; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship. The Board may also be asked to provide advice and recommendations on any EM program components.

Purpose of the Consent Order Subcommittee: The subcommittee reviews the 2016 Compliance Order on Consent, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, and draft recommendations for the full Board's consideration as to how to improve it.

Purpose of the Risk Evaluation and Management Subcommittee: The subcommittee drafts external citizen-based recommendations for the full Board's consideration on human and ecological health risk resulting from historical, current, and future hazardous and radioactive legacy waste operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Public Participation: The online virtual meeting is open to the public. To sign up for public comment, please contact Menice Santistevan by email, Menice.Santistevan@em.doe.gov, no later than 5:00 p.m. MDT on Friday, June 23, 2023. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or within five days after the meeting by sending them to Menice Santistevan at the aforementioned email address. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the internet at: http://energy.gov/em/nnmcab/meeting-materials.

This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2023. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register November, 30, 2022 during a 60-day comment period (87 FR 73357). This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. 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.

Abstract: Discharge Monitoring Report-Quality Assurance (DMR-QA) study program participation is mandatory for major and selected minor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 308. The DMR-QA study program is designed to evaluate the analytic ability of laboratories that perform chemical, microbiological and whole effluent toxicity (WET) analyses required in NPDES permits for reporting results in the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR). Under DMR-QA, the permit holder is responsible for having their in-house and/or contract laboratories analyze performance evaluation samples and submit results to proficiency testing (PT) providers for grading. Graded results are transmitted by either the permit holder or PT provider to the appropriate federal or state NPDES permitting authority. Permit holders are responsible for submitting corrective action reports to the appropriate permitting authority.

Form numbers: EPA Form 6400-01.

Respondents/affected entities: Major and selected minor permit holders under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under Clean Water Act section 308(a).

Estimated number of respondents: 5,500 (total).

Frequency of response: Annually, On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 36,300 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $5,852,825 (per year), which includes $3,781,470 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the estimates: There is no change of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. Non-labor costs for obtaining performance evaluation samples increased.

In the Federal Register of April 21, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-08440, on page 24615:

1. In the first column, correct the “Agency Docket Number” to read “EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0869”; and

2. In the second column, correct the ADDRESSES by correcting the “Agency Docket Number” to read “EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0869”.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the Court) currently operates at three existing Court facilities: the Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building and Courthouse (Ribicoff Courthouse) in Hartford, the Richard C. Lee U.S. Courthouse in New Haven, and the Brien McMahon Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Bridgeport. Long-range facilities planning for the Court and the Court Project Priorities process determined that Court operations in Hartford are projected to increase, and that Court headquarters would relocate from New Haven to Hartford.

The Ribicoff Courthouse, constructed in 1963, does not have the space, functionality, security, and building systems to meet the current and projected needs of the Court. The facility also presents numerous functional challenges related to circulation, prisoner movement, and operational and safety needs of the Judiciary.

GSA conducted feasibility studies to determine a suitable alternative that established the budget, site considerations, and basis for a project designed to provide long-term solutions to the Court's projected space requirements. The results from the feasibility studies led to GSA's decision to locate the Court's judicial operations at a new Federal Courthouse in Hartford, CT.

The EIS will consider three “action” alternatives and one “no action” alternative. Under the action alternatives, GSA would acquire a site of at least two acres of land in Hartford, CT for the design and construction of a new Federal Courthouse. The no action alternative assumes that site acquisition and subsequent design and construction of a new Federal Courthouse would not occur. The Judiciary would continue to operate under current conditions at the Ribicoff Courthouse, and at the courthouses in New Haven and Bridgeport.

A new Federal Courthouse would have the following features:

• Total building gross square footage of approximately 281,000;

• 11 courtrooms and 18 Judge chambers;

• Offices for various Federal agency tenants; and

• 66 secure parking spaces.

GSA has identified three potential sites for the project, each corresponding to an action alternative (listed north to south):

• Woodland Site —encompasses one land parcel and is 10.10 acres. The property lies in Hartford's Asylum Hill neighborhood, a block south of Saint Francis Hospital. It is bounded by Asylum Ave. to the north, the North Branch of Park River to the west, healthcare-related buildings along its southern perimeter, and Woodland St. to the east. It is currently utilized as a State of Connecticut office building.

• Allyn Site —encompasses 10 land parcels and is 2.19 acres. The property lies downtown, two blocks north of Bushnell Park. It is bounded by Church St. to the north, High St. to the west, Allyn St. to the south, and mixed-use buildings along its eastern perimeter. It is currently utilized as a surface parking lot.

• Hudson Site —encompasses six land parcels and is 2.54 acres. The property lies downtown, two blocks south of Bushnell Park. The parcels are separated by Hudson St., with the larger property (2.24 acres) to the west of Hudson St. and the smaller property (0.3 acres) to the east of Hudson St. The larger property is bounded by Capitol Ave. to the north, West St. to the west, and Buckingham St. to the south. It is currently utilized as a surface parking lot and an auto detailing shop. The smaller property is bounded by Buckingham St. to the south and mixed-use buildings along its northern and eastern perimeters. It is currently utilized as a surface parking lot.

The views and comments of the public are necessary to help determine the scope and content of the environmental analysis. Interested parties are encouraged to participate in the public scoping meeting and provide written comments regarding the scope of the EIS.

There will be a project presentation at 6:00 p.m. with a public comment period to follow. An American Sign language translator and a Spanish language interpreter will be available. After the meeting, GSA will post the following items at the Project website, http://gsa.gov/hartfordcourthouse:

Further information about the project can be viewed at: http://gsa.gov/hartfordcourthouse.

A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by AHRQ, and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.

The SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for “Dissemination and Implementation of Equity-Focused Evidence-Based Interventions in Healthcare Delivery Systems (R18)” are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities dictate.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Measures for Primary Healthcare Spending. AHRQ is conducting this technical brief pursuant to Section 902 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a.

The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public ( e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Measures for Primary Healthcare Spending, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol is available online at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/primary-healthcare-spending .

This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Measures for Primary Healthcare Spending helpful:

A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.

For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, a summary, including the following elements: study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.

A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.

Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.

Your contribution is very beneficial to the Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program website and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/email-updates.

The technical brief will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions.

The five questions below guide our work in synthesizing a description of research, ongoing efforts, and directions in measuring primary care spending.

1. What are the definitions, data sources, and methodologies used to estimate primary care spending in published reports?

a. How do these various primary care spending estimation methods vary by:

i. Relative pros and cons of each estimation method

ii. Administrative burden

iii. Range of spending estimates

iv. Sensitivity analyses

b. What is the evidence of the relationship between different primary care spending estimation methods and the absolute and relative levels of primary care spending and health outcomes including morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and health equity?

2. What are the research gaps in understanding primary care spending estimation methods based on the findings of the evidence map?

3. What are considerations for developing valid and standardized estimation of primary care spending?

4. What are approaches that health economists, health services researchers, payers, health systems, and policymakers can employ to develop and implement a standardized measure of primary care spending and to assess spending over time, across payers/populations, and across states?

5. Contextual Questions:

a. Is there any emerging consensus among experts in the field toward a standard or preferred method for assessment of primary care spending?

b. How have policymakers and other decision makers used primary care spending measures?

CDC is providing notice under 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014 of the renewal of the charter of the WTC Health Program STAC. The STAC was established by title I of Public Law 111-347 (the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010), as amended by Public Laws 114-113, 116-59, and 117-328. This charter has been renewed for a two-year period through May 12, 2025.

The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Background: The World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, including the World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (WTCHP-STAC), was established by Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-347, as amended by Public Law 114-113, Public Law 116-59, and Public Law 117-328 (December 23, 2022), adding title XXXIII to the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm-62). Title XXXIII of the PHS Act established the WTC Health Program within the Department of Health and Human Services. The WTC Health Program provides medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible firefighters and related personnel, law enforcement officers, and rescue, recovery, and cleanup workers who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (responders), and to eligible persons who were present in the dust or dust cloud on September 11, 2001, or who worked, resided, or attended school, childcare, or adult daycare in the New York City disaster area (survivors).

All references to the Administrator in this document mean the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or his or her designee.

Purpose: The purpose of the WTCHP-STAC is to review scientific and medical evidence and to make recommendations to the Administrator of the WTC Health Program regarding additional WTC Health Program eligibility criteria, potential additions to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List), and research regarding certain health conditions related to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In accordance with section 3312(a)(6)(G)(i)(II), the Administrator must ask the WTCHP-STAC to review and evaluate any substantive amendment to any existing WTC Health Program policy or procedure used to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support adding a health condition to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions.

The Administrator is responsible for the administration of the WTCHP-STAC. CDC and NIOSH provide funding, staffing, and administrative support services for the WTCHP-STAC. The WTCHP-STAC's charter was reissued on May 12, 2023, and will expire on May 12, 2025.

Matters To Be Considered: In December 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 amended section 3341 of the PHS Act to direct the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to establish a new research cohort to conduct future research studies on the health and educational impacts of “exposure to airborne toxins, or any other hazard or adverse condition, resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including on the population of individuals who were 21 years of age or younger at the time of exposure, including such individuals who are screening-eligible WTC survivors or certified-eligible WTC survivors.” The main focus of the WTC Health Program STAC meeting will be a discussion of the new youth research cohort being established by the WTC Health Program. The meeting agenda will include a presentation on establishing the cohort and the Program's perspectives, as well as an overview of young survivors. In addition, the WTC Survivors Steering Committee will lead presentations on young survivors' views and community-based participatory research.

The meeting will also include a presentation and discussion about substantive amendments to the existing Policy and Procedures for Adding Non-Cancer Health Conditions to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions. Proposed revisions to the Policy and Procedures were initially presented to the STAC at its meeting on February 9, 2023; the presentation will detail further revisions made to the Policy and Procedures in response to recommendations of the STAC at its previous meeting.

Background documents as well as the agenda for this meeting are available on the WTC Health Program website at https://www.cdc.gov/wtc/stac_meeting.html. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Interested parties may participate by submitting written views, opinions, recommendations, and data. You may submit comments on any topic related to the matters to be discussed by the Committee. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. If you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be on public display. CDC will review all submissions and may choose to redact, or withhold, submissions containing private or proprietary information such as Social Security numbers, medical information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near-duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. CDC will carefully consider all comments submitted into the docket.

Oral Public Comment: The public is welcome to participate, via Zoom, during the public comment periods on June 21, 2023, from 1:20 p.m. to 1:50 p.m., EDT, and on June 22, 2023, from 11:05 a.m. to 11:35 a.m., EDT. Each commenter will be provided up to five minutes for comment. A limited number of time slots are available and will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis.

Procedure for Oral Public Comment: Members of the public who wish to address the WTCHP-STAC during the oral public comment sessions at the June 21-22, 2023, WTCHP-STAC meeting must sign up to speak by providing their name to Ms. Mia Wallace, Committee Management Specialist, via email at MWallace@cdc.gov, by June 14, 2023. Zoom instructions and participation details will follow.

Written Public Comment: Written comments will also be accepted per the instructions provided in the Addresses section above. Written public comments received prior to the meeting will be part of the official record of the meeting. The docket will close on June 22, 2023.

Policy on Redaction of Committee Meeting Transcripts (Public Comment): Transcripts will be prepared and posted to https://www.regulations.gov within 60 days after the meeting. If individuals making a comment give their name, no attempt will be made to redact the name. NIOSH will take reasonable steps to ensure that individuals making public comments are aware that their comments (including their names, if provided) will appear in a transcript of the meeting posted on a public website. Such reasonable steps include a statement read at the start of the meeting stating that transcripts will be posted, and names of speakers will not be redacted. If individuals in making a statement reveal personal information ( e.g., medical information) about themselves, that information will not usually be redacted. The CDC Freedom of Information Act coordinator will, however, review such revelations in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and, if deemed appropriate, will redact such information. Disclosures of information concerning third-party medical information will be redacted.

The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Description: State and Tribal title IV-E agencies are required to report AFCARS case-level information on all children in foster care and children who have been adopted or placed in a guardianship with title IV-E agency involvement. The data collected will inform policy decisions, program management, and responses to Congressional and Departmental inquiries. Specifically, the data are used for short/long-term budget projections, trend analysis, child and family service reviews, and to target areas for improved technical assistance. The data will provide information on the number of children in foster care, the reasons they enter and exit care, and how to prevent their unnecessary placement in foster care. Specifically, the data include information about children who enter foster care, their entries and exits, placement details, and foster/adoptive parent information. This extension request is unrelated to any potential new regulatory activity that may occur subsequently. This request is for public comment on the burden calculations. It does not seek comment on the data elements that have been through the rulemaking process.

Respondents: Title IV-E State and Tribal Child Welfare Agencies.

The following annual burden estimates have been updated to reflect feedback received from the States and Tribes after the first notice published on May 15, 2023 (88 FR 16449). This feedback encouraged ACF to increase the estimated hours per response for recordkeeping.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,180,590.

Authority: Section 479 of the Social Security Act and 45 CFR 1355.44-45.

This guidance document provides recommendations that may help manufacturers comply with the special controls related to non-clinical performance data for gynecologic and general laparoscopic power morcellation containment systems (“tissue containment systems”). Tissue containment systems are used to enable isolation and containment of tissue during a power morcellation procedure performed following a laparoscopic procedure for the excision of benign tissue that is not suspected to contain malignancy. This guidance recommends non-clinical test methods that may help manufacturers meet the non-clinical performance data requirements identified in the special controls codified in § 884.4050(b)(4) (21 CFR 884.4050(b)(4)) (for gynecologic use) and § 878.4825(b)(4) (21 CFR 878.4825(b)(4)) (for general use), and also includes other non-clinical testing recommendations to support a 510(k) submission/substantial equivalence determination. The recommendations in this guidance are based on FDA's experience evaluating the safety and effectiveness of tissue containment systems. However, manufacturers may use alternative approaches and provide different documentation so long as their approach and documentation satisfy premarket submission requirements in applicable statutory provisions and regulations.

A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the Federal Register of June 21, 2022 (87 FR 36859). FDA considered comments received and revised the guidance as appropriate in response to the comments, including a clarification that material permeability testing is recommended to aid in demonstrating substantial equivalence but is not required in the special controls in § 884.4050(b)(4) and § 878.4825(b)(4); specifying that aged samples may be subject to accelerated or real time aging; and indicating that a manufacturer conducting final finished testing of a tissue containment system with multiple device sizes may use the worst-case size sample(s), but, if doing so, should provide a justification for the choice of worst-case size sample(s) in its submission.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Non-Clinical Performance Assessment of Tissue Containment Systems Used During Power Morcellation Procedures.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products. This guidance document is also available at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Non-Clinical Performance Assessment of Tissue Containment Systems Used During Power Morcellation Procedures” may send an email request to CDRH-Guidance@fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number GUI00019015 and complete title to identify the guidance you are requesting.

While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in the following FDA regulations, guidance, and forms have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Adjusting for Covariates in Randomized Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biological Products.” The guidance provides recommendations on adjusting for covariates in the analysis of randomized clinical trials. The guidance discusses the acceptability of covariate adjustment, recommendations for implementing adjusted analyses, prespecification, selection of covariates, change from baseline analyses, statistical inference, estimands, and various statistical models. The guidance includes comments on covariate adjusting using both linear and nonlinear models.

This guidance finalizes the revised draft guidance issued on May 21, 2021 (86 FR 27627). Changes from the draft to the final guidance include changes to wording and organization and updated and clarified recommendations on computing standard errors, stratified randomization, estimands, treatment by covariate interactions, and additional methods.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Adjusting for Covariates in Randomized Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biological Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR 312 pertaining to the submissions of investigational new drug applications have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, or https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Diabetes Mellitus: Efficacy Endpoints for Clinical Trials Investigating Antidiabetic Drugs and Biological Products.” In this draft guidance we discuss approaches to demonstrating efficacy of antidiabetic drugs for adults and children with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. This draft guidance provides recommendations for demonstrating efficacy for drugs that are intended to reduce diabetes-related hyperglycemia ( i.e., antihyperglycemic drugs) and to mitigate iatrogenic hypoglycemia associated with diabetes management. The use of hemoglobin A1c as a primary endpoint for glycemic-control trials is discussed along with recommendations for trial design and conduct to allow for adequate data interpretation. The draft guidance also provides hypoglycemia definitions, trial design considerations for hypoglycemia efficacy endpoints, and hypoglycemia measurement methods. Additional efficacy endpoints are also briefly considered.

This draft guidance replaces, in part, the draft guidance for industry “Diabetes Mellitus: Developing Drugs and Therapeutic Biologics for Treatment and Prevention” (73 FR 11420) published in February 2008 and withdrawn in 2020. In March 2020, FDA withdrew the February 2008 draft guidance because its recommendations for safety assessment were outdated. At the same time, FDA issued the draft guidance for industry “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control” March 10, 2020 (85 FR 13903) (available at https://www.fda.gov/media/135936/download ). This draft guidance, when finalized, will provide FDA's current recommendations on this issue.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Diabetes Mellitus: Efficacy Endpoints for Clinical Trials Investigating Antidiabetic Drugs and Biological Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this draft guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this draft guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov.

PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996 and is currently operating under the authority given in Executive Order 14048, dated September 30, 2021. The Council was established to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to promote effective HIV diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and quality care services. The functions of the Council are solely advisory in nature. The Council consists of not more than 35 members. Council members are selected from prominent community leaders with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV and AIDS, public health, global health, population health, philanthropy, marketing or business, as well as other national leaders held in high esteem from other sectors of society. PACHA selections also include persons with lived HIV experience and racial/ethnic and sexual and gender minority persons disproportionately affected by HIV. Council members are appointed by the Secretary.

This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2023 (88 FR 10527) and allowed 60 days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, NIH has submitted to OMB a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.

Proposed Collection Title: Chimpanzee Research Use Form, 0925-0705, expiration date 9/30/2023, EXTENSION, Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Need and Use of Information Collection: The purpose of this form is to obtain information needed by NIH to assess whether the proposed research satisfies the agency's policy for permitting only noninvasive research involving chimpanzees. NIH will consider the information submitted through this form prior to the agency making funding decisions or otherwise allowing the research to begin. Completion of this form is a mandatory step toward receiving NIH support or approval for noninvasive research involving chimpanzees. NIH does not fund any research involving chimpanzees proposed in new or other competing projects (renewals or revisions) unless the research is consistent with the definition of “noninvasive research,” as described in the “Standards of Care for Chimpanzees Held in the Federally Supported Chimpanzee Sanctuary System” (42 CFR part 9). See NOT-OD-16-095 at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-095.html and 81 FR 6873.

OMB approval is requested for three years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 10.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from the Sweetwater Authority (applicant) for a 5-year incidental take permit for five covered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant is seeking a permit to incidentally take four animal species and seeking assurance for one plant species (all are federally listed species) during the term of the proposed 5-year permit. The permit is needed to authorize take of listed animal species (including harm, death, and injury) in the course of activities associated with the implementation of the Sweetwater Reservoir Habitat Management Program (HMP), removal of the requirement to hold reservoir water elevation at or below 230 feet (ft), and implementation of the Sweetwater Reservoir Wetlands Habitat Recovery Project (HRP) within the HMP area in San Diego County, California. A conservation program to avoid, minimize, and mitigate anticipated impacts from project activities would be implemented as described in the habitat conservation plan (HCP) prepared by the applicant.

We are requesting comments on the permit application, which includes the applicant's habitat conservation plan (HCP), and on the Service's preliminary determination that this proposed incidental take permit qualifies as “low effect” and may qualify for a categorical exclusion pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1501.4), the Department of the Interior's (DOI) NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46), and the DOI's Departmental Manual (516 DM 8.5(C)(2)). To make this preliminary determination, we prepared a draft environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which is also available for public review.

Section 9 of the Act and its implementing Federal regulations prohibit the take of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under section 10(a) of the Act, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed animal species. “Incidental take” is defined by the Act's implementing regulations as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32. The definition of take under the Act does not apply to plant species; however, plant species identified in an HCP are included on the permit as covered species in recognition of the conservation measures provided for them under the HCP, and these plants receive “no surprises” regulatory assurances under the permit.

The HMP area is in southern San Diego County, south of the community of Spring Valley, along the Sweetwater River. The Sweetwater Reservoir is a managed surface water storage facility in the Sweetwater River Watershed that receives direct local runoff from the watershed's middle basin, water transfers from Loveland Reservoir (which captures water runoff from the watershed's upper basin), and imported water, when available, through the San Diego County Water Authority aqueduct. The HMP area supports coastal sage scrub, mulefat scrub, southern willow forest, and nonnative grassland vegetation communities, which include potential habitat for the covered species: the federally listed endangered least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) and southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ), and the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica californica ), yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus ), and Otay tarplant ( Deinadra conjugens ). More details on the specific parcels and their locations are available in the permit application (see ADDRESSES ).

The applicant is seeking an incidental take permit for implementation of the HMP, removal of the 230-ft-elevation imported water restrictions, and implementation of the 66.9-acre (ac) HRP within the 250-ac HMP area. The HMP area was originally set aside for conservation in 1994 to preserve and manage least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher and their habitat, while providing the applicant the ability to manage the Sweetwater Reservoir for drinking water purposes. In 2005, an irrevocable dedication of land for wildlife preservation was created on 52.5 ac of riparian habitat within the HMP area potentially suitable for least Bell's vireo, and associated mitigation credits were established for applicant project impacts to least Bell's vireo and riparian habitat. The HRP is a grant-funded project and will establish 66.9 ac of additional riparian and wetland habitat within the managed portion of Sweetwater Reservoir, using a combination of passive and active techniques. The applicant also proposes to remove the 230-ft restriction and allow the water elevation to reach the high point of the dam (239 ft) on an infrequent basis, to increase water storage during high-rainfall years. Raising the water elevation threshold may result in infrequent flooding and temporary impacts to riparian habitat, with reproductive impacts to least Bell's vireo, and also potentially to southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo should they be observed on site in the future. The HCP requires an update to the HMP to address changes in reservoir operations and adaptive management of reservoir levels; the HMP update must be completed and approved by the Service prior to allowing imported water above the 230-ft elevation. The updated HMP will allow for the establishment of additional mitigation credits based on newly established and restored riparian habitat placed under in-perpetuity conservation.

The HMP area provides regionally important habitat for least Bell's vireo as well as potential habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo. We anticipate minor periodic impacts to least Bell's vireo, and potentially to southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoos, during implementation of the HRP and HMP, and infrequent, temporary flooding impacts associated with the increase in the reservoir elevation in periods of high rainfall. Proposed maintenance activities within the HMP also have the potential to result in minor periodic impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher in upland coastal sage scrub habitat. Critical habitat for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, and Otay tarplant occur within the 250-ac HMP area proposed to be conserved in perpetuity.

The proposed action consists of the issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the proposed HCP, which includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to covered species. The applicant proposes to preserve the entire 250-ac HMP in perpetuity through an irrevocable dedication or similar instrument. As project-specific mitigation, the applicant will debit 37.5 ac from established riparian habitat mitigation credits within the HMP. Funding for habitat management within the HMP will come from the applicant's general funds, an endowment for in-perpetuity funding, or other mechanism(s) agreed upon by the Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Three alternatives to the taking of the listed species under the proposed action are considered in the proposed HCP. Under the no-action alternative, no authorized incidental take of covered species would occur, and no additional habitat restoration or management would be conducted in the HMP to expand habitat for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or yellow-billed cuckoo. Under the HRP with channel modifications alternative, extensive grading and channel modifications within the floodplain would improve natural hydrology with substantial impacts to existing riparian habitat but ultimately more sustainable hydrological function. This alternative would result in an increase in the temporal loss of riparian habitat and breeding territories relative to the proposed action and require additional regulatory permitting. Under the alternative for retaining the 230-ft imported water restriction, the water storage capacity of the reservoir would not be increased to meet regional drinking water demands. While this alternative would reduce potential infrequent temporary impacts to least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo and their habitat, habitat flooding with the potential to impact covered riparian birds and their habitat may still occur within the HMP in high-rainfall years, and the applicant would not be eligible for the grant that is proposed to fund the HRP. The proposed project achieves the applicant's objectives and maximizes riparian vegetation and least Bell's vireo habitat, while minimizing potential impacts to covered species.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposed project would individually and cumulatively have a minor, nonsignificant effect on the covered species and the human environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed Endangered Species Act section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be a “low-effect” incidental take permit that individually or cumulatively would have a minor effect on the species and may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. A “low-effect” incidental take permit is one that would result in (1) minor or negligible effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) nonsignificant effects on the human environment; and (3) impacts that, when added together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would not result in significant cumulative effects to the human environment.

If you wish to comment on the permit application, proposed HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any of the methods noted in the ADDRESSES section.

Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508 and 43 CFR 46).

This document provides notice that the BLM Nevada State Office intends to prepare an EIS to consider the effects of a ROW application for the Greenlink North Project, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues to be analyzed in the Draft EIS. The proposed Project is in White Pine, Eureka, Lander, Churchill, and Lyon counties, Nevada. The proposed Project encompasses approximately 1,394 acres of public lands administered by the BLM.

In compliance with NEPA and FLPMA, the BLM Nevada State Office intends to prepare an EIS to analyze the environmental impacts associated with NV Energy's application seeking to obtain a ROW grant for the Greenlink North Project.

Under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) Open Access Transmission Tariff adopted in 18 CFR parts 35 and 385, Order No. 888 (75 FERC 61,080 (April 24, 1996)), NV Energy is required to plan and construct adequate transmission facilities to deliver the projected electric demand in Nevada. The State of Nevada is facing unprecedented changes in both system growth and resource requirements. By 2031, 1,000 megawatts (MW) of base load generation are planned for retirement, i.e., will no longer be generating electricity. In addition, NV Energy has received more than 1,450 MW of new electric service requests in northern Nevada that will require additional transmission facilities. Currently, the maximum amount of power that can be provided in northern Nevada on the existing transmission network is 1,275 MW, and all 1,275 MW are being used by current network customers. The power demand in northern Nevada is forecast to increase by more than 700 MW within 10 years. New transmission infrastructure is required to deliver the anticipated electric power demand.

The Greenlink North Project would alleviate some of the capacity issues on existing transmission lines and enhance electric grid reliability by allowing interconnections to occur throughout the State. The purpose of this Federal action is to respond to the ROW application for construction, operation, and decommissioning of proposed electrical transmission facilities on Federal land. Based on the goals and objectives of the proponent and the BLM's authority, the BLM will evaluate the ROW application submitted by NV Energy in compliance with FLPMA, BLM regulations, and other applicable Federal laws and policies. The need for this Federal action is to fulfill the BLM's responsibilities under FLPMA and its ROW regulations to manage the public lands for multiple uses, including for “systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy” (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4)).

The Proposed Action is to construct, operate and decommission a proposed system of new 525-kV, 345-kV, 230-kV, and 120-kV electric transmission facilities on approximately 1,394 acres of BLM administered lands. Additional action alternatives have not been identified to date but will be developed by taking into consideration comments and input received during the application evaluation determination process and scoping.

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not issue a ROW grant for the construction, operation and decommissioning of a proposed system of new 525-kV, 345-kV, 230-kV, and 120-kV electric transmission facilities. The proposed Project would not be constructed, and existing land uses in the project area would continue. The BLM welcomes comments on the preliminary Proposed Action as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.

The analysis in the EIS will be focused on the proposed transmission project and associated facilities. The BLM evaluated the proposed Project application per the 43 CFR part 2800 application evaluation determination process. Through this process, the BLM gathered input from an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists and completed public outreach and agency and Indian Tribal Nations coordination specific to the proposed Project. From the input received during four pre-EIS virtual public workshops, the preliminary impacts from construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the Project and associated facilities could include:

• Vegetation and soils.

• Threatened, endangered, and BLM sensitive species.

• Air quality and climate.

• Cultural and historical resources.

• Greater-sage grouse.

• Access to public lands.

• Socioeconomics.

• Public health and safety.

Along with a BLM ROW grant as required under 43 CFR 2801.9, NV Energy anticipates needing additional permits for the proposed project: a Nevada Public Utilities Commission Permit to Construct; Nevada Division of Water Resources water rights modification permits; and other permits, as necessary. A portion of the Project could occur on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, which would require a special use permit for the Project. The U.S. Forest Service would rely on the analysis contained in the EIS to support any special use permit. Further details on these permitting requirements may be found in the Preliminary Plan of Development which is available on the project website at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/admin/project/2017033/510.

The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA process, including a 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review in winter 2024, and the Final EIS and subsequent Record of Decision are anticipated to be released in summer 2024.

This Notice of Intent initiates the public scoping process, which guides the development of the Draft EIS.

The BLM will be holding a combination of virtual and in-person scoping workshops. The specific date(s) and location(s) of scoping workshops will be announced at least 15 days in advance through the local media and the e-Planning web page: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2017033/510.

The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives and mitigation measures, and to guide the process for developing the Draft EIS. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Indian Tribal Nations and stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency. The BLM encourages comments concerning the proposed Greenlink North Project, possible measures to minimize and/or avoid adverse environmental impacts, and any other information relevant to the Proposed Action.

The BLM also requests assistance with identifying potential reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action. As alternatives should resolve an issue with the Proposed Action, please indicate the purpose of the suggested alternative. In addition, the BLM requests the identification of potential issues that should be analyzed. Issues should be a result of the Proposed Action or other reasonable alternatives; therefore, please identify the activity along with the potential issues.

The BLM Nevada State Office is the lead Federal agency for this EIS. The BLM has initially identified the following agencies and organizations as potential Cooperating Agencies to participate in the environmental analysis of the Project: Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Department of Transportation, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Walker River Paiute Tribe, Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Division of Minerals, Churchill County, White Pine County, Lyon County, Eureka County, and Lander County.

The following Tribes were invited to participate as a Cooperating Agency in BLM's initial notification letter: Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, Lovelock Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Pahrump Paiute Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, Te-Moak Tribe-Battle Mountain Band, Te-Moak Tribe-Elko Band, Te-Moak Tribe-South Fork Band, Te-Moak Tribe-Wells Band, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Walker River Paiute Tribe, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Winnemucca Indian Colony, Winnemucca Indian Colony, Yerington Paiute Tribe, and Yomba Shoshone Tribe. These and other federally recognized T`ribes may request Cooperating Agency status during preparation and review of the Draft EIS.

The Nevada State Office Director is the deciding official for the proposed Greenlink North Project.

The BLM will decide whether to grant, grant with conditions, or deny the right-of-way application. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2805.10, if the BLM issues a right-of-way grant(s), the BLM decision maker may include terms, conditions, and stipulations determined to be in the public interest.

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the EIS to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in this process: air quality, archaeology, botany, climate change (greenhouse gases), environmental justice, fire and fuels, geology/mineral resources, hydrology, invasive/non-native species, lands and realty, National Conservation Lands, National Trails System, public health and safety, recreation/transportation, socioeconomics, soils, visual resources, and wildlife.

The BLM will identify, analyze, and consider mitigation to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from all analyzed reasonable alternatives and, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(e), include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed alternatives. Mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and compensation; and may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape scale.

The BLM will utilize the NEPA process to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of section 106. The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed Project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.

The BLM will consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780, and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. The BLM intends to hold government-to-government consultation meetings. The BLM will send invitations to potentially impacted Indian Tribal Nations prior to the meetings. The BLM will provide additional opportunities for government-to-government consultation during the NEPA process.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

On July 22, 2020, Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company dba NV Energy (NV Energy or Proponent) filed an Application for Transportation, Utility Systems, Telecommunications, and Facilities on Federal Lands and Property (Standard Form 299) and a preliminary Plan of Development with the BLM Nevada State Office for a FLPMA Right-of-Way and Short-Term Right-of-Way authorization for the Greenlink West Project (NVN-99863 and NVN-99863-01).

The Draft EIS/RMPA analyzes the environmental impacts of the authorization of a 200-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) by the BLM for the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 525-kV line, a 160-foot-wide ROW for the 345-kV lines, and a 600-foot short-term ROW for construction and staging to NV Energy for a 474-mile system of new 525-kilovolt (kV), 345-kV, and 120-kV overhead electric transmission lines. The proposal also includes transmission and distribution lines, substations, microwave radio facilities, amplifier sites, access roads, and construction/material yards. The Draft EIS/RMPA analyzes the impacts of potential RMP amendments together with the impacts of the various alternative routes.

A Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS for the Greenlink West Project published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2022 (87 FR 25658), providing notice to the public of potential amendments to RMPs, as required by 43 CFR 1610.2(c). The public scoping period closed on June 1, 2022. The BLM held four public scoping meetings and received approximately 81 public scoping comment letters during the 30-day scoping period. The scoping comments focused on biological resources, alternatives development, visual resources, cultural resources, impacts to general and special-status wildlife species, including threatened and endangered species and their habitat, social and economic conditions, vegetation/riparian/noxious and invasive weeds/special status plant species, including threatened and endangered species and their habitat, water resources, wilderness, wilderness study areas, lands with wilderness characteristics, special designations, recreation, socioeconomic concerns, and Native American cultural/sacred sites. The BLM prepared a scoping report, which is available on the project's ePlanning website— https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2017391/510.

The BLM's purpose is to respond to the ROW application submitted by the Proponent to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a system of transmission facilities and associated infrastructure that would transmit electricity between the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County and the Mira Loma and Comstock Meadows substations in Washoe County and Storey County, respectively.

The need for this action is to fulfill the BLM's responsibility under FLPMA and its ROW regulations to manage the public lands for multiple uses, including the transmission of electric energy. FLPMA, as amended, established a multiple-use mandate for the BLM's management of federal lands, including “systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy, except that the Proponent shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the FERC under the Federal Power Act, including Part I thereof (41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r).” (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4))

The BIA's purpose, as a Department of the Interior (DOI) bureau with a NEPA compliance need, is to respond to the ROW application submitted by the Proponent to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a transmission line over or across lands held in trust for the Las Vegas and Walker River Paiute Tribes, and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.

The BIA's need for this action is to fulfill its responsibility under 25 CFR part 169 (Rights-of-Way over Indian Land) regulations to review and approve actions on Tribal trust lands. The BIA's purpose and need, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 415, is to deny, grant, or grant with modifications the ROW agreements between the Walker River and Las Vegas Paiute Tribes, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, and the Proponent. The final ROW grant would include any restrictions or conditions imposed in a consent document between the applicant and both the Las Vegas and Walker River Paiute Tribes, and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.

The NPS's purpose, as a DOI bureau with a NEPA compliance need, is to respond to the ROW application submitted by the Proponent to operate and maintain a transmission line over or across NPS-administered lands designated to conserve and protect unique and nationally important paleontological resources.

The need for this action is to fulfill the NPS responsibility under NPS ROW regulations to manage Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument in compliance with the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 113-291) enabling legislation and the NPS 2006 Management Policies. The NPS ROW permits are discretionary and revocable and do not convey an interest in land. All NPS ROW permit applications will be processed in accordance with the NPS ROW permitting guidance document, Reference Manual 53-B, and all other applicable regulations and policy. All new NPS ROW permits must be approved by the NPS Director or NPS Regional Director. Proposed uses of NPS-administered lands and waters may not be incompatible with the public interest or the NPS responsibilities under 54 U.S.C. 100101 (the 1916 Organic Act, expanded upon in 36 CFR 14). Under 54 U.S.C. 100902, the NPS has the authority to issue a ROW permit for utilities.

The BLM has analyzed the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action as submitted by NV Energy, and the Preferred Alternative. In addition, the BLM has also analyzed several transmission route groups that it developed to address concerns by the public about impacts to cultural, biological, and socioeconomic resources. The BLM has identified a Preferred Alternative, which is a modification of the Proposed Action with the inclusion of transmission line, substation, and microwave alternatives. The BLM also considered 21 additional alternatives but dismissed these from detailed analysis as explained in Section 2.3 of the Draft EIS/RMPA.

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not authorize the ROW for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a system of transmission facilities and associated infrastructure. The agency purpose and need would not be met by the No Action Alternative.

Under the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative, the BLM, NPS and BIA would authorize ROWs for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a system of transmission facilities and associated infrastructure. Both alternatives would meet the agency purpose and need, however the Preferred Alternative would utilize certain different transmission line, substation, and microwave alternatives.

The BLM determined that two plan amendments to the 1998 Las Vegas RMP warranted evaluation in the Proposed Action. The Greenlink West Project area includes Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes II, III, and IV. The BLM has evaluated the re-classification of a part of the alignment from VRM Class II to Class IV. The Greenlink West Project area also crosses a West-Wide Energy Corridor (WWEC). Portions of that WWEC that are unoccupied by utility infrastructure would be re-aligned to match that of the Greenlink West Project transmission line.

The BLM added an anti-perching/nesting mitigation measure to the Proposed Action to reduce the potential for raven predation on Bi-State sage-grouse and the Mohave desert tortoise through installation of tubular (no-lattice) transmission structures ( e.g., tubular H-frame, three-pole dead end, or monopole structures). Perch and nest deterrent devices would also be installed on all transmission and distribution structures within Mojave desert tortoise recovery units and within two miles of Bi-State sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation.

If approved, the BLM, NPS, and BIA would issue a ROWs for their jurisdiction. The term of the ROWs would be for 30-years.

The BLM is utilizing the NEPA substitution process to comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 306108, consistent with 36 CFR 800.8(c). The BLM, as lead federal agency, has incorporated information and the steps of the Section 106 process into the Draft EIS, and publication of the Draft EIS will allow the consulting parties and the public an opportunity to review and comment on the process as provided in 36 CFR 800.8(c)(2).

The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM MS 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Additional government-to-government meetings are planned, and coordination will continue through project implementation.

Consistent with the NEPA and BLM's land use planning regulations, the BLM will include a 30-day public protest period and a concurrent 60-day Governor's consistency review when the BLM publishes the Final EIS/Proposed RMPA. The Final EIS/Proposed RMPA is anticipated to be available in winter 2024 with an approved RMPA and Record of Decision in spring 2024.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BOEM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps BOEM assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand BOEM's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

BOEM is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR described below. BOEM is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM; (2) what can BOEM do to ensure that this information is processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the burden estimate accurate; (4) how might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including minimizing the burden through the use of information technology?

Comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. BOEM will include or summarize each comment in its ICR to OMB for approval of this information collection. You should be aware that your entire comment—including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information included in your comment—may be made publicly available at any time.

For BOEM to consider withholding from disclosure your personally identifiable information, you must identify, in a cover letter, any information contained in your comment that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of your privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequences of the disclosure of information, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm.

Even if BOEM withholds your personally identifiable information in the context of this ICR, your comment is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). If your comment is requested under FOIA, your information will only be withheld if a determination is made that one of the FOIA exemptions to disclosure applies. Such a determination will be made in accordance with the Department of the Interior's (DOI) FOIA implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and applicable law.

BOEM will make available for public inspection all comments in their entirety (except proprietary information) submitted by organizations and businesses, or by individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses. BOEM protects proprietary information in accordance with FOIA and the DOI's implementing regulations.

Title of Collection: “30 CFR part 583, Negotiated Noncompetitive Agreements for the Use of Outer Continental Shelf Sand, Gravel, and/or Shell Resources.”

Abstract: In 2017, BOEM published a final rule that created part 583 in title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations to address the use of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sand, gravel, and shell resources for shore protection, beach restoration, or coastal wetlands restoration projects by Federal, State, or local government agencies, or for use in construction projects authorized by or funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government.

The OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of mineral resources on the OCS. Section 1337(k)(2) of title 43 authorizes the Secretary to “. . . negotiate with any person an agreement for the use of Outer Continental Shelf sand, gravel and shell resources—(i) for use in a program of, or project for, shore protection, beach restoration, or coastal wetlands restoration undertaken by a Federal, State, or local government agency; or (ii) for use in a construction project . . . that is funded in whole or in part by or authorized by the Federal Government.” The Secretary delegated this authority to BOEM.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0191.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Potential respondents include Federal, State, or local governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 45 responses.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 299 hours (Hours are same as currently approved).

Respondent's Obligation: Required to retain or obtain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: BOEM has identified no non-hour paperwork cost burdens for this collection.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: BOEM estimates that the annual reporting burden for this collection is 299 hours. BOEM has reviewed the hour burdens for requested information under this subpart. The following table details the regulatory sections containing information collections and their respective hour burden estimates.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Proposed Action: Ocean Wind seeks approval to construct, operate, and maintain the Project: a wind energy facility and its associated export cables on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore New Jersey. The Project would be developed within the range of design parameters outlined in the Ocean Wind 1 COP, subject to applicable mitigation measures. The Project as proposed in the COP would include up to 98 wind turbine generators (WTGs), up to 3 offshore high voltage alternating current substations, inter-array cables linking the individual turbines to the offshore substations, substation interconnector cables linking the substations to each other, offshore export cables, an onshore export cable system, 2 onshore substations, and connections to the existing electrical grid in New Jersey. The WTGs, offshore substations, inter-array cables, and substation interconnector cables would be located on the OCS approximately 13 nautical miles (15 statute miles) southeast of Atlantic City, New Jersey, within the area defined by Renewable Energy Lease OCS-A 0498 (Lease Area). The offshore export cables would be buried below the seabed surface in the OCS and State of New Jersey-owned submerged lands. The onshore export cables, substations, and grid connections would be located in Ocean County and Cape May County, New Jersey.

Alternatives: BOEM considered 26 alternatives when preparing the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and carried forward 6 alternatives for further analysis in the DEIS and FEIS. These six alternatives include five action alternatives and the no action alternative. Twenty alternatives were rejected because they did not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action or did not meet screening criteria, which are presented appendix C of the FEIS. The screening criteria included consistency with law and regulations, technical and economic feasibility, environmental impact, and geographic considerations.

Availability of the FEIS: The FEIS, Ocean Wind 1 COP, and associated information are available on BOEM's website at: https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/ocean-wind-1. BOEM has distributed digital copies of the FEIS to all parties listed in appendix K of the FEIS. If you require a digital copy of the FEIS on a flash drive or paper copy, BOEM will provide one upon request, as long as copies are available. You may request a flash drive or paper copy of the FEIS by contacting Lisa Landers at (703) 787-1520 or Lisa.Landers@boem.gov.

Cooperating Agencies: The following 11 Federal agencies and State governmental entities participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the FEIS: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Marine Fisheries Service; National Park Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of Defense; New Jersey Board of Public Utilities; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; and New York State Department of State.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq. (NEPA, as amended) and 40 CFR 1506.6.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the information collection or the OMB Control Number 1140-0020. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Justice, information collections currently under review by OMB.

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

Overview of this information collection:

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a previously approved collection.

2. Title of the Form/Collection: Firearms Transaction Record/Registro de Transacción de Armas de Fuego.

3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form number: ATF Form 4473 (5300.9).

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Abstract: The Firearms Transaction Record/Registro de Transacción de Armas de Fuego allows Federal firearms licensees to determine the eligibility of persons purchasing firearms. It also alerts buyers to certain restrictions on the receipt and possession of firearms.

5. Obligation to Respond: Mandatory per 27 CFR 478.124.

6. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 16,102,962.

7. Total Estimated Number of Responses: 16,102,962.

8. Time per Response: 30 minutes.

9. Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 8,051,481 hours.

10. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

If additional information is required, contact: John R. Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the information collection or the OMB Control Number 1117-0014. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Justice, information collections currently under review by OMB.

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

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Registration and Application for Registration Renewal.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: DEA Forms: 224, 224A. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Affected public: Private Sector—business or other for-profit. Abstract: The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 801-971) requires all persons that manufacture, distribute, dispense, conduct research with, import, or export any controlled substance to obtain a registration issued by the Attorney General. The proposed revisions are implementations of the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022, which was a part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 117-328. DEA would be revising the proposed information collections by adding a checkbox to the new application and renewal application for applicants to affirm that they have completed the new eight-hour training requirement. DEA would also be adding three questions to the applications in regards to the training requirements, in which they would be required to answer yes to at least one of the questions in order to proceed.

5. Obligation to respond: Required to retain or obtain a benefit.

6. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: # of respondents.

7. Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes for the DEA-224a form and 10 minutes for the DEA-224 form (average time per response is 15 minutes).

8. Frequency: Once a year.

9. Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 136,128.

10. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $17,679,160.

If additional information is required, contact: John R. Carlson, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.